Beautiful or outrageous?

[Rhiannon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36322279

Personally I think it's very human and deeply touching. Not beautiful exactly, simply because the little boy in the picture is very poorly. I've done something similar with my kids when we've been covered together in their vomit.

[Harrowby Hall]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36322279

Personally I think it's very human and deeply touching. Not beautiful exactly, simply because the little boy in the picture is very poorly. I've done something similar with my kids when we've been covered together in their vomit.

Of course it is touching, human, loving and beautiful.

Unfortunately the obsessions of the gutter press have resulted in many people being conditioned into believing that nudity is sexual and that men are paedophile. The combination of nakedness and a man with a child will result in only one conclusion for some people. Humanity is poorer for this.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I should have used the word 'loving'. There's a huge amount of love in that picture.

It's actually very important for children to learn about safe touching and not safe touching. I learned baby massage so my children knew about safe touch from the off. It's one reason why I like to see teachers hugging children. (Contrary to popular belief many still do).

I think this picture demonstrates safe touching perfectly.

[L.A.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36322279

Personally I think it's very human and deeply touching. Not beautiful exactly, simply because the little boy in the picture is very poorly. I've done something similar with my kids when we've been covered together in their vomit.

I don't have any problem with the image itself, but I do wonder what the mentality is of a person who wants to put it in the public domain.

[Rhiannon]

Does that also include the one of the woman and child in the same link?

[L.A.]

Does that also include the one of the woman and child in the same link?

As a heterosexual, of course I find the image of a naked lady erotic - but whatever your sexuality, I think it is inadvisable to put images of naked children on the internet.

[Rhiannon]

Er, ok.

Well I'm heterosexual but I don't find anything erotic about the naked man in the photo - the context is all wrong. But perhaps you didn't mean that. 

Paedophiles have plenty of material online if they want it, tragically. Including films of births, baptisms and nativity plays. This photo makes an important statement that nudity within families is acceptable and that our bodies aren't ugly or inherently dangerous. Especially male bodies.

[L.A.]

Er, ok.

Well I'm heterosexual but I don't find anything erotic about the naked man in the photo - the context is all wrong. But perhaps you didn't mean that. 

Paedophiles have plenty of material online if they want it, tragically. Including films of births, baptisms and nativity plays. This photo makes an important statement that nudity within families is acceptable and that our bodies aren't ugly or inherently dangerous. Especially male bodies.

I suppose I agree  in a way; both images do portray parental care for a distressed child - but I've spent nights up (yes,even semi naked) with sick kids (and often a  bucket) - and I'm not sure I'd want those images on the internet (even if they existed, the bottle of dettol might be a distraction).

. . . and their are people out there who do get sexual gratification from these kinds of image - so why do it?

[Rhiannon]

No, I wouldn't want the nights I've spent naked nursing a sick child photographed either - or clothed come to that. But the reason for doing it is as I've already said - normalising it. Otherwise we're creating a world where little children can't paddle naked in the sea and their dads are viewed with suspicion for having a bath with them. Yes, some paedophiles will get off on that photo but as I've said some will on pictures of newborns, of nativity plays, of kids blowing out candles on a birthday cake. If we don't want that then we don't allow any photos of children in the public domain at all.

[Shaker]

There are vastly more loving parents than there are paedophiles.

Must the army of the former really have to self-censor just for fear of the minuscule latter?

This is the sort of thing that that now nearly legendary episode of Brass Eye took the piss out of so successfully.

[L.A.]

No, I wouldn't want the nights I've spent naked nursing a sick child photographed either - or clothed come to that. But the reason for doing it is as I've already said - normalising it. Otherwise we're creating a world where little children can't paddle naked in the sea and their dads are viewed with suspicion for having a bath with them. Yes, some paedophiles will get off on that photo but as I've said some will on pictures of newborns, of nativity plays, of kids blowing out candles on a birthday cake. If we don't want that then we don't allow any photos of children in the public domain at all.

I do agree with those sentiments, but I think it is unwise to put some of those images in the public domain.

[L.A.]

There are vastly more loving parents than there are paedophiles.

Must the army of the former really have to self-censor just for fear of the minuscule latter?

This is the sort of thing that that now nearly legendary episode of Brass Eye took the piss out of so successfully.

Yes, but why would loving parents want to display their naked children to the world?

[Rhiannon]

Yes, but why would loving parents want to display their naked children to the world?

Because the majority of people will see it for what it is.

This argument's getting circular but the counter is still - why only naked? Why not in a nappy, in a swimming costume, in a bridesmaid's dress, in pyjamas?

[L.A.]

Because the majority of people will see it for what it is.

This argument's getting circular but the counter is still - why only naked? Why not in a nappy, in a swimming costume, in a bridesmaid's dress, in pyjamas?

No, I'm sorry that just won't do!

Yes, those images might have great value for your family and you might well wish to share them with friends - but why the hell would you want to make them available to every peadophile and nutter in the world?

[Gordon]

Given the stated circumstances I'm surprised that some would be unduly concerned about this picture: I'd say that those who misrepresent what is going on, given the context, are the real problem here.

This anxiety about photographs of children seems excessive when it involves just immediate family, and it wasn't always like that - we've still got old video of our kids swimming in a public pool taken on holidays about 25 odd years ago (when video cameras were bulky so that when used they were obvious) - but try and take a picture of just your own child in a public swimming pool today place and you could be in trouble. There was a case a while back in a shopping centre near Glasgow where a father decided to take a picture of his own young child (no other kids in the shot) on one the these coin-slot kiddy rides, security told him to stop and delete the picture - he refused and the police were called. 

We live in a culture where every phone is a camera and where many people do like to document the minutiae of their daily lives on social media: my adult kids and older grandchildren do this and post trivia - 'here's a pic of the cake I made earlier' (or similarly earth-shattering events). This picture seems very much an example of that use of social media, and some people clearly use it to record more than just trivia and where it involves family life and isn't exploitative then I can't see the problem.

Why some people like to produce a running commentary of their lives (with pics, 'warts and all') on social media beats me - but perhaps that is just a generational thing on my part.

[Harrowby Hall]

Because the majority of people will see it for what it is.

This argument's getting circular but the counter is still - why only naked? Why not in a nappy, in a swimming costume, in a bridesmaid's dress, in pyjamas?

Kharma applaud, Rhi.

There is nothing wrong - or sexual - about nudity per se.

I think that LA seems to have thrown the towel in the the ring and accepted defeat at the hands of the sub-editors from the gutter press.

I believe that in some places in the USA  little girls are expected to be clothed in a two piece swimsuit on a beach. The idea that - because she is female - her chest must be covered is eroticising childhood. It is also giving a powerful message about her body to the child concerned: that it is a source of shame.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

We live in a culture where every phone is a camera and where many people do like to document the minutiae of their daily lives on social media: my adult kids and older grandchildren do this and post trivia - 'here's a pic of the cake I made earlier' (or similarly earth-shattering events). This picture seems very much an example of that use of social media, and some people clearly use it to record more than just trivia and where it involves family life and isn't exploitative then I can't see the problem.

Why some people like to produce a running commentary of their lives (with pics, 'warts and all') on social media beats me - but perhaps that is just a generational thing on my part.

I must be in the wrong generation then - I'm in my mid forties but I don't get why someone would post such intimate pictures for general public consumption (unless there was no way of identifying the family). It is a touching photo but if the parents posted it onto social media in a way whereby they can be identified IMO it just seems attention-seeking or narcissistic and becomes as vacuous as the thousands of pouting selfies and all the other dross posted on public social media that people want attention for.

Taking care of a sick child is nothing exceptional and my daughters as babies were held in their father's arms while he showered as a quick way to wash them at the same time - it was very sweet for us as parents - but if someone wants to share an intimate, family moment with the public in a way where the family can be identified, the sweetness for me is tainted by the person saying "look at us, look at us". There are probably loads of parents doing this without posting pictures of it in public so it's posting the picture that seems warped to me. 

I can understand posting shocking pictures of teenagers in hospital in intensive care after taking drugs - there is a serious message to get across as a warning to other teenagers who might be thinking of trying something at a party without knowing what exactly is in it.

I avoided the whole Facebook thing with my 16 year old - she wasn't allowed it and by the time I vaguely thought about relenting about a year ago, she'd lost interest. Her fairly basic smart phone (present from a grandparent) recently stopped working so she is now part of a small minority of people navigating life without a mobile phone. Perfect timing since she is currently doing her iGCSE exams.

[Rhiannon]

The mother's a photographer. I suspect for many who work in that field capturing and sharing the beauty of intimate moments is second nature.

[floo]

A pervert's delight I would have thought, certainly NOT something to put on the NET!

[Rhiannon]

Why, Floo?

[Shaker]

I must be in the wrong generation then

No, that's just an excuse. It's not the age group you belong to but the weird ideas you hold.

[Harrowby Hall]

My response to the photo was ... as a photo. And to the story being told.

I think to impose on it some external value and context debases it as a document.

[Udayana]

I can't see anything wrong with such photos just as images.

The problem is really that ready availability of such pictures on networked media could encourage growth of a market in material for paedophiles, and thus lead to criminal abuse of children to satisfy this market.

Similar to the way the availability of existing ivory stocks is now being seen as encouraging the market in ivory and lead to increased elephant poaching?

Maybe there is a better way to deal with this kind of problem?

[Shaker]

No, I'm sorry that just won't do!

Yes, those images might have great value for your family and you might well wish to share them with friends - but why the hell would you want to make them available to every peadophile and nutter in the world?

Probably because the vast majority of normal people shouldn't have to self-censor and cease to share meaningful pictures of the things they hold most dear in the world because of the possibility they might be seen by a vanishingly small section of the population with a sexual interest in children.

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The mother's a photographer. I suspect for many who work in that field capturing and sharing the beauty of intimate moments is second nature.

Maybe - but to me that sounds like a doctor wanting to take their own sick child into hospital as an interesting case study for junior doctors. It's not a wrong thing to do but just seems a bit heartless IMO to not be able to separate your passion or vocation from the privacy of family life. I guess I just think social media demeans the emotion of private moments. I don't expect many others to agree with that in current times.

ETA: It's not taking the photo as a private memory that I have a problem with - it's putting out for public consumption in a way that the family can be identified that I find weird.