Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure why there is someone taking pictures instead of trying to get them dressed?
Why not? Nothing wrong with that at all. Kids are not something you have to rush to get - and keep - dressed at all times. In fact many of us - myself included - maintain long periods of nudity in our children at home. Sometimes for the entire time they are at home. Clothing is not some pre-determined necessity in our life where every naked person has to be covered up as soon as possible. The way you phrase the sentence above makes it sound like as soon as a child is naked everyone should instantly be in a state of "trying to get them dressed" as soon as possible.
Children showing affection to each other by hugging and kissing is a wonderful sight to behold and I can well understand why someone would want to photograph it to maintain the memory for posterity. There is no reason they should be thinking or saying "Ok - that natural loving moment was great - now can you artifically repeat it again for the camera so I can get a picture but get dressed first!".
These wonderful natural moments can (and for many of us should) be photographed for posterity whenever they occur - and nudity is no reason to put it off or miss the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom
On the subject of common sense. I know this is 100% not pornography. No question about that. But why do so many parents love to take these type of photos of their kids anyway?
Again - why not? The best pictures are ones to take in moments that are totally natural and "in the moment" and they can occur at any time at all - clothed or unclothed. Those of us who allow our children to be nude at home will find that the "unclothed" category will therefore be naturally higher.
If being nude is a specific pre-requisite people have for the photos of their children then yes - you have the beginnings of a point there. There is something clearly suspect with that. If however nudity is simply irrelevant and parents are just taking the best photos as and when they happen - then what of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7of9
Then thinking about how the kids were "examined" - again - irreparable damage to a growing child.
Thankfully I doubt you have too much to worry about there. Medical examinations are common - even outside the world of criminal investigation - and doctors know how to perform them with care and so forth. The examainations in this instance are not likely to differ much from any standard examination a doctor would perform on children of that age for a multitude of other possible reasons. Having a trained medical professional examine the genitals of children is not some life destroying pyschological event that is going to scar children in any way. Nor is a parent performing cursory examinations when a child complains of anything in those regions going to harm anyone in any way. There are - alas - people in the world who do maintain the idea that a parent using their fingers to carefully seperate the vulva and look for inflamations or irratations is some horrendus sexual act that will alter the course of the childs well being for all eternity or some such.
Seperating the children from their family for no good reason for extended periods of time however.... THAT we can lament and feel sad for and it is one of the actual tradgedies in a case like this along with the presence of the parents names on anything resembling a sex offenders register.
Just having a medical examination, even one that would involve checking for signs of abuse is not traumatic for a well adjusted child.
.
That's not the point.
Would you consider taking your 1 and 1/2 year old daughter for medical exam if there is no need for it and especially when you are suspected to be guilty of child abuse and maybe molestation?
How are you going to explain that to your kid? sorry honey they thought daddy/mommy were monsters and you had to go away for few weeks??
Would you consider taking your 1 and 1/2 year old daughter for medical exam if there is no need for it and especially when you are suspected to be guilty of child abuse and maybe molestation?
How are you going to explain that to your kid? sorry honey they thought daddy/mommy were monsters and you had to go away for few weeks??
Of course its the point. It isn't the exam that it is traumatizing, you are projecting. What is traumatizing is the removal from the home.
DubbleT set me straight about store policy (any exposed genitalia must be reported), I think it should be posted at the photo department where it can easily be seen...maybe then (if you know there might be a picture of your little ones in the bath) you can go elsewhere.,,,lkb0714, I disagree that a medical exam would not be truamatizing to a child, it absolutely would, for any child, well adjusted or not.
A child that is traumatized by a doctor examining them is a child who may have been abused.
Children do not naturally think any part of their body is "bad" or shouldn't be examined. Especially toddlers. That is adults projecting their own feelings.
My cousin's daughter had a large strawberry birthmark on her vulva. She had it removed when she was 3. She was regularly examined by doctors, she was in no way traumatized by this. Why would she be? She was a small child who had no knowledge of her body in terms of sex. For her it was no different than having her ears examined.
Some have suggested that the laws kick in when genitals are shown. No, no, no! That's NOT true from my understanding. Naked photos of kids must be reported to authorities, period. Walmart had no choice but to report them.
Actually most laws state that reporting is mandatory when children are shown in actual or simulated sex acts. But at least one state has a more broad definition.
"A commercial film or photographic print processor has knowledge of or observes any film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide depicting a child, whom he or she knows or should know is under age 17, that constitutes child pornography" https://www.childwelfare.gov/
Most large retail chains apply laws from the strictest states as company wide policy, just so there is no confusion. To my knowledge naked baby butts on a rug are still ok to process, as are kids covered up in a bubble bath. It's when you get into that murky realm of "what constitutes child pornography" that questions arise. Genitalia starts edging into that territory, so stores train clerks to report that.
Would you consider taking your 1 and 1/2 year old daughter for medical exam if there is no need for it and especially when you are suspected to be guilty of child abuse and maybe molestation?
How are you going to explain that to your kid? sorry honey they thought daddy/mommy were monsters and you had to go away for few weeks??
If you suspected of child abuse then and you know you're innocent it tends to be in your legal interest to take your child to be examined. Thats exactly what I did, I was accused of abusing my daughter (19 months at the time) so I agreed to all the examinations and the doctors told me it was the best thing to do for my own legal protection.
We certainly should put an end to the appalling practice of anonymous reporting. The benefits for innocent families would outweigh the ill effects.
Uh... what?
Do you realize how much sexual abuse goes unreported, or how many people report anonymously? How can you possibly say the benefits for innocent families would outweigh the ill effects? That's like saying those who are being abused should take one for the team so long as they are reported by people who are not willing to provide their identification.
The poster favors limiting sexual abuse investigations, believing that allegations involving younger children are usually unfounded and that sexual contact with older children, or at least teenagers, by caregivers, is often harmless, IIRC.
Merjolie8...I beg to differ...it was walmarts employees that caused the "problem" to begin with. Maybe they should instruct their employees better about what is considered porn, and what isn't. If they have incompetent workers with no common sense working for them (walmart), then they (walmart) should have to pay the price....You say they are "required to report what they did"....who decides what is reportable or what isn't?,,,and if it's the employees working in the store, who's responsible for them?
It's actually pretty simple. Photo lab techs are required to report any photograph with children's genitals showing. The WalMart employees did nothing wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
