Volumnius Flush
05-10-2008, 11:09 PM
Growing up, I often wondered if my parents had taken the iconic picture, (every young man's worst nightmare), of the naked man as a child with his butt sticking in the air, or even worse, the one with his weenie floating in the water. My biggest fear was my girlfriend would come home to meet my parents and they would pull out the baby pictures. Luckily, my parents never subjected me to such a traumatic experience. My dignity was held sacred, as if it held a life of its own.
But there is a bigger picture here. A bigger, much deeper issue that we have not yet touched the surface on. It is CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
Did you know if your parent took the iconic picture of you as a child, they were perpetrators, and conspirators in CHILD PORNOGRAHY?
How can one say it is okay to expose the privates of children, in film, or photography, and say it is cute? Say it is love? You have disrespected your child.
I thought to take a nude you had to have someone's consent first. So I can set up a hidden camera in a girl's bathroom and watch undress, to pleasure myself? But of course that's wrong, but just because I think it's cute, that's okay?
The defining moment here is the issue of privacy and consent. First off, that child has a right to privacy. He should not be photographed or filmed in the nude because it is a violation of his right to privacy. Secondly, it is a violation of his right of his consent. YOU CAN"T TAKE NUDES OF PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
It is disrespectful, it violates their privacy, and completely bypasses the method by which we derive the CONSENT TO MAKE THAT DECISION. BUT INSTEAD, WE FORCE IT ON THEM.
So the only logical conclusion is that it is appropriate only when the person can give no consent. We adhere to the believe that they just would have said, "Yes."
But there is still a hole in this summation. So I can take pictures of Down's Syndrome patients nude? They can't give consent and by all appearances, that is the only qualification, that the person photographed or filmed cannot give consent.
They can't give consent so it's okay? Who made this rule?
The fact is these parents photographing their children naked need to be fined and imprisoned for violations against child's rights, privacy rights, pedophilia-related memorabilia , and their disgusting desire to see naked children. If it were up to them, their children would just run around all day naked I guess.
In retrospect, it is a highly trained eye who can spot the hypocrisy, the deception, and the perverted side of parenthood like I can. It is harmful to the child's development. The pictures provide little to no positive improvement or add any value to the child's life here on this earth. And finally it is the most despicable form of child photography other than blatant pedophilia, and it is a reasonable conclusion to be disgusted.
But there is a bigger picture here. A bigger, much deeper issue that we have not yet touched the surface on. It is CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
Did you know if your parent took the iconic picture of you as a child, they were perpetrators, and conspirators in CHILD PORNOGRAHY?
How can one say it is okay to expose the privates of children, in film, or photography, and say it is cute? Say it is love? You have disrespected your child.
I thought to take a nude you had to have someone's consent first. So I can set up a hidden camera in a girl's bathroom and watch undress, to pleasure myself? But of course that's wrong, but just because I think it's cute, that's okay?
The defining moment here is the issue of privacy and consent. First off, that child has a right to privacy. He should not be photographed or filmed in the nude because it is a violation of his right to privacy. Secondly, it is a violation of his right of his consent. YOU CAN"T TAKE NUDES OF PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
It is disrespectful, it violates their privacy, and completely bypasses the method by which we derive the CONSENT TO MAKE THAT DECISION. BUT INSTEAD, WE FORCE IT ON THEM.
So the only logical conclusion is that it is appropriate only when the person can give no consent. We adhere to the believe that they just would have said, "Yes."
But there is still a hole in this summation. So I can take pictures of Down's Syndrome patients nude? They can't give consent and by all appearances, that is the only qualification, that the person photographed or filmed cannot give consent.
They can't give consent so it's okay? Who made this rule?
The fact is these parents photographing their children naked need to be fined and imprisoned for violations against child's rights, privacy rights, pedophilia-related memorabilia , and their disgusting desire to see naked children. If it were up to them, their children would just run around all day naked I guess.
In retrospect, it is a highly trained eye who can spot the hypocrisy, the deception, and the perverted side of parenthood like I can. It is harmful to the child's development. The pictures provide little to no positive improvement or add any value to the child's life here on this earth. And finally it is the most despicable form of child photography other than blatant pedophilia, and it is a reasonable conclusion to be disgusted.