Dad Of naked 6 Yr Old Cover Girls Writes About "Sensuality Of Children"

[Ciara]

I dont agree with them using her to defend the pictures either. She is too young to fully understand the debate surrounding her pictures.

 

[PSUfan]

Fathers should protect their daughters. This man has to know that he is putting his daughter out there for real life, and internet pedophiles to wank off to. The whole "sensuality comments" are just lame, when you combine the comment with the naked pic of his daughter. He is not protecting his daughter.

 

[southcitymom]

Did I say it was pervy to be aware of that? I don't think so. Didn't mean to imply that either, just FYI.

I changed that part of my post before I saw yours - it seemed inaccurate when I re-read it. I didn't feel like you were saying anything was pervy about it - though I've heard others make such comments.

 

[txsvicki]

I dare this artsy dipstick to go up to big Dads out in public with their children and tell them how sensual their children appear. It wouldn't have been accepted 100 years ago and it won't be 100 years from now no matter what type of silly excuses this man comes up with.

 

[Bluebel]

His comments in the linked article in the first post are appalling.

Nice that he's trying so hard to cover his *advertiser censored* without bothering to cover hers.

The photos I saw didn't bother me, but his comments did.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

How is it that they can put a naked six year old's photo on/in a magazine and not be charged with child *advertiser censored*?! It is illegal. If anyone else did this...we would expect charges immediately and to have the child taken away. I don't understand.

 

[southcitymom]

How is it that they can put a naked six year old's photo on/in a magazine and not be charged with child *advertiser censored*?! It is illegal. If anyone else did this...we would expect charges immediately and to have the child taken away. I don't understand.

Is that true, SS - in Australia? I really don't know. Even over here - I am unsure of what the actual boundaries are of nude children in media. I understand it's illegal if sexual activity is taking place - beyond that, I feel like it is a judgment call.

This has always been a confusing topic for me and, I think, for our laws. Are preteens in bras and underwear or bathing suits in a Sears catalog inappropriate? That certainly seems less sexually charged than 6-year-old beauty queens dressed like sex kittens, but that's allowed too. What is the age cut-off where we call this inappropriate? - Anne Geddes does some cute stuff with naked babies and makes good money doing it.

I think exploring the innocence of children is fair game for any art - when it becomes wrong is so personally subjective. It's just a difficult topic.

 

[Taximom]

It's definitely a tough issue. Didn't our government try to figure out exactly what *advertiser censored* was? I think when it comes to children, however, it's just better to be safe than sorry. Art or not...think of the children first.

 

[southcitymom]

It's definitely a tough issue. Didn't our government try to figure out exactly what *advertiser censored* was? I think when it comes to children, however, it's just better to be safe than sorry. Art or not...think of the children first.

I just remember that famous line from Stewart, I think - "that *advertiser censored* is hard to define but we know it when we see it."

So in terms of published art or media (I am assuming you would not take offense at family pics of naked children but perhaps I assume wrong!), what do you think the cut-off age should be in order to be safe rather than sorry? Or should it be across the board - no naked or scantily clad pics of under 18s ever, even infants? And then we're still left with the fully clothed ones that ooze more sexuality than the naked ones... What do we do with those?

 

[Kiki]

In 1991 An 11 year old boy named Junny Rios-Martinez was pictured in Florida Today after having won a kite flying competition. Junny posed, fully clothed, with his kite. A paedophile named Mark recently released from prison saw that picture and became obsessed with Junny. Posing as a reporter Mark met Junny and his family and later on promised to organise sponsorship for Junny's surfing career. The evil creep phoned Junny's school posing as his father and arranged for Junny to meet him at a nearby baseball field after school. When Junny met him Mark said he was going to take him to meet some sponsors. Instead Mark raped and murdered him. All this from one picture.

 

[liltigress]

This is appalling. This guy is "sensualizing and sexualizing" that little girl. He has made her a victim and she will be a victim every time that picture is passed around from one perv to another. This child is not old enough to be accountable for her actions, her parents are.

The bigger question is... Why would any father want to photograph his child nude, much less expose her to the world??? Seems to me he is merely conditioning her to associate love and beauty with nudity?

I see where he was actually blaming the victim by saying she was ASKING to be photographed? Geez! Of course she was, that's what she's been shown that will get attention?

Is anyone else thinking on the same lines as I am?

 

[Taximom]

I just remember that famous line from Stewart, I think - "that *advertiser censored* is hard to define but we know it when we see it."

So in terms of published art or media (I am assuming you would not take offense at family pics of naked children but perhaps I assume wrong!), what do you think the cut-off age should be in order to be safe rather than sorry? Or should it be across the board - no naked or scantily clad pics of under 18s ever, even infants? And then we're still left with the fully clothed ones that ooze more sexuality than the naked ones... What do we do with those?

Yes, that was the quote I was thinking of! (Was it Stewart?)

I think we saw with Dennis Rader that any picture from a store ad (even fully clothed) could be arousing to someone like him. There are people outraged by the Abercrombie & Fitch clothing ads. Miley Cyrus, anyone?

I just think it's in the best interest of our children (sure, let's use the age of 18) that we limit their exposure, whether it be for the sake of art or media.

I don't think this father or the photographer had the best interests of this child in mind when they exposed her little body for all the world to see.

Yes, liltigress, I've been feeling the "ick" factor since I first saw this picture, and the father's explanation hasn't helped change my mind.

 

[liltigress]

I would almost bet if it were investigated deeper, that magazine just may be only a cover to something much uglier.

 

[gine]

Aside from my belief that this is child *advertiser censored*, I don't even believe the picture to be worthy of a cover for an Art magazine to start with. The picture is ugly, not the child mind you - beautiful child other than she should have clothes on, but the picture of and by itself is horrid. It is my opinion the only reason it was put on the cover was because the child was nude and to bring about controversy.

And as far as being sexually stimulated by breast feeding. . . just ugh. If you get sexually stimulatd while breast feeding, you should stop.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I agree. Breastfeeding should not evoke a sexual response from the mother.

South, the only answer I have on taking nudes of infants as opposed to a 6 year old is that when they outgrow their infancy...it is time to put clothes on them. Besides, I don't think you can say that people taking photos of their babies to immortalize their posterior as an infant in their baby book can compare in any way to taking photos of a 6 year old to be distributed internationally on a magazine. In my world, the parents of the child are pimping her out for money. When their child is 16 years old and they have her spread eagle on a bed...I guess they will consider that "art", too. I can hear the father now touting how "sensual" the photo is!

They don't have to be in a sexual position for it to be considered child *advertiser censored*. You could take nude shots of children playing in a tub and it be considered child *advertiser censored*. I wonder if the pedophile arrested for doing that could use the "artistic expression" defense?

By the way, I refuse to look at the photos of this child. I practice what I preach.

 

[Ciara]

Putting this child on the cover of that magazine is totally different to putting cute nudey snaps of your kid splashing in the bath or something into your PRIVATE photo albums.

 

[southcitymom]

Yes, that was the quote I was thinking of! (Was it Stewart?)

I think we saw with Dennis Rader that any picture from a store ad (even fully clothed) could be arousing to someone like him. There are people outraged by the Abercrombie & Fitch clothing ads. Miley Cyrus, anyone?

I just think it's in the best interest of our children (sure, let's use the age of 18) that we limit their exposure, whether it be for the sake of art or media.

I don't think this father or the photographer had the best interests of this child in mind when they exposed her little body for all the world to see.

Yes, liltigress, I've been feeling the "ick" factor since I first saw this picture, and the father's explanation hasn't helped change my mind.

See, Taxi - some people do feel a perv factor if nipple stimulation during breastfeeding leads to sexual arousal!! I get that such a response feels taboo to some folks, but I don't think it's inherently icky or even all that surprising. It wasn't my experience - breastfeeding was very painful for me even after my nipples toughened up - but it is more common than I think we may imagine. I just suspect many woman would not feel comfortable "admitting" it.

As far as limiting child media exposure until 18, I just wonder what our boundaries would look like with that. I recall a heated thread when Dakota Fanning was in that rape scene and of course child actors portray all range of "negative" situations.

As you and others have pointed out - fully clothed child images can be compelling enough to lead someone with sexual perversions to rape and murder.

 

[liltigress]

What's more dangerous anymore is displaying a child to the public in any situation, clothed or not. For every handful of sane individuals that say "Oh what a precious child", there are sure to be a couple of deranged individuals that find him/her sexually arousing.

I'm still sickened by this father that is basically "pimping" out his daughter. (IMO) She really has no choice in being exploited by the ones who are supposed to protect her.

The jewelry in the one picture could have been photographed with the little girl clothed! And I'd have to say would be a much cuter picture.

 

[sherri79]

Thanks for the link, miss vegemite. If one of the purposes of art is to evoke strong emotion, these photos are succeeding!

post a pic of a child being raped and you will evoke strong emotion. it will depend on who is looking at it. anger, the need to vomit, pity, life long emotional scars for the person looking at the picture, or sexual desire. art may evoke emotion but so will children. if you pose a child for a nude photo are you creating art or *advertiser censored* may be a issue you feel needs debate. the fact that it evokes strong emotion is not relevant to the debate. good art and all child *advertiser censored* happen to have it in common.

 

[Taximom]

See, Taxi - some people do feel a perv factor if nipple stimulation during breastfeeding leads to sexual arousal!! (snipped)

I don't remember much about those breastfeeding days, frankly. I do remember feeling non-sexual though. If one more person touched me at the end of the day I felt crazy! (Yes, poor hubby.)

I must not be as close to my friends as you though because I don't think any of us ever talked to each other about whether we got turned on by breastfeeding or not. I'm kind of glad we didn't, in a way.