# Pornographic?!! NSFW



## mishele (Aug 23, 2014)

This was a very interesting read/watch. Curious how you guys feel.

Link could be considered NSFW. You've been warned. 
People Called These Photos Of An Artist's Daughter 'Pornographic.' And This Was His Response.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 23, 2014)

I don't find 2 year old children sexually attractive.


----------



## limr (Aug 23, 2014)

I don't think that's what defines pornography. I don't find donkeys sexually attractive either, but I bet there are some stage shows that would still be classified as porn despite my lack of interest in it. 

Sure, one could argue that the mind of a pervert can turn anything into porn, but that doesn't mean that the picture should still be considered porn. One needs to take the intent, not just the reception, into consideration.

Are these pictures of the girl porn? I don't think so, although in a few of them, I could see where bumps up against the line. For example, the photo of her standing against the wall with her hand down her pants - make that same picture in about 15 years and it becomes overtly sexual. So maybe people are upset about the few that are like that, when the girl's pose mirrors a pose that would be considered sexual in adults.

 I think the highly stylized processing of some of the photos might also make it feel like the father is manipulating the scene for a photo shoot rather than capturing moments of his child playing. That might cause people to think that the father is sexualizing his daughter. Or they've got other issues that make them see nefarious forces at work as a default. I'm not saying that the father intended it that way or posed her that way. I used to babysit kids who hated, I mean *hated* to wear clothes when they were that age, so if I took a lot of pictures of them, a lot of those pictures would be of naked children. But there's clearly something more about these photos that are causing more consternation among a larger group of people rather than just a couple of pervs on the fringe.

One thing that's confusing me in the article is that there were a few pictures with no one in them at all. Just landscape. What was the point of that?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2014)

Pornographic?  No, I don't think so.  Appropriate?  Well, I'm not sure about that either.  Yes, we in North America are rather conservative about certain things, nudity being VERY high on that list, and if these were simply family photos?  Great, fine.  Fill your boots.  But...  they're not, they're being shown to the world, and the model does not yet have the level of development to know whether it's right or wrong.  In fifteen or twenty years, she could be ashamed of these image...  This reeks to me of someone trying to prove an artistic point; no different than horrifically injured people after a disaster or things of that nature.  Yes, you can do it.  Should you do it?  I don't think so.  He's just trying to push people's buttons.


----------



## coffeefilter (Aug 23, 2014)

Not porn, but suggestive in a sexual manner. Putting a child in a pose like that is wrong in my eyes.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 23, 2014)

Well, he got his 15 minutes' worth of fame. Next?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2014)

OK, so someone direct me to where he posed this little girl.  I must have missed that part.

FWIW, many little girls like to 'pose' on their own.  These could be the result of the girl acting totally naturally, and the photographer is able to capture those moments with a camera.

I have my neighbor's 9yo grand-daughter who is a natural in front of a camera.  She has a bit more modesty, of course, but occasionally strikes a 'pose' (totally on her own, with NO direction from me whatsoever) that might be considered suggestive by members of the Prude Society.


----------



## dennybeall (Aug 23, 2014)

I don't see pornography on the part of the photographer, I do see stupidity, ignorance and a total lack of consideration for the young child that will be a women some day. The appropriate shots are well done and serve a purpose while the naked and bathroom shots serve no purpose other than to exploit the child for the gain of the photographer. He did get the attention he wanted so it's a success for him.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 23, 2014)

Only in the US


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 23, 2014)

When I saw the title I was hoping for a selfie taken-while-tipsy.
Be still my heart.
But no :waiting:


----------



## dennybeall (Aug 23, 2014)

gsgary - do you mean it could only occur in the USA or it would be appalling only in the USA


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> When I saw the title I was hoping for a selfie taken-while-tipsy.
> *Be still my heart*.
> But no :waiting:



When did you get one of those?


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 23, 2014)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > When I saw the title I was hoping for a selfie taken-while-tipsy.
> ...



That was my second purchase from OrganRental.com


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


  And as yet, I assume, un-used?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 23, 2014)

Looks to me like a typical toddler fidgeting with a diaper (in the diaper, whatever), having a tantrum, etc. I've worked in early intervention, this looks like pretty normal behavior to me and nothing I haven't seen before (as probably have most parents and grandparents etc.).

It's more where someone puts pictures and where they may eventually end up, unfortunately in this case someplace that the so-called 'incognito' internet users can post hateful nasty and ridiculous comments (some of those are what's appalling to me, not the pictures! jeez). I'd just think in this day and age about where I'd put pictures of kids and which ones I'd make publicly viewable.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 23, 2014)

I don't understand what the point of these images are. I mean, really? You take a photo of your daughter topless with her hands in her pants dressed up like a cowgirl, and then cry foul when people say it is a little questionable? I'd take one look at that on the light table and know EXACTLY what people would see in that image.

now, yeah, I have kids. I get it. My son has his damn fingers in his butt crack most of the day. But seriously. Most parents would say GET YOUR DAMN HANDS OUT OF YOR PANTS! Not snap pictures. Frankly, the only reason why these images are anything at all is because of the inherent irony that if they were of an adult woman, they would be pornographic. Perhaps that in itself makes them interesting (even if not intentional) but don't go on saying that its not saying something about sexuality ... just perhaps not child pornography.

Really though, the whole innocence line is pretty lame. Its an under developed, over used thesis to the point of cliché whenever anyone is accused of this sort of thing.


----------



## Bender (Aug 23, 2014)

If there was no such thing as pedophilia, then the thought that these were pornographic would never occur to anyone.
The "evil" of the image is in the mind of the viewer.
If a viewer then projects this supposed intent on the person who took the image, does that make the photographer evil?
I can see these as innocent and somewhat interesting images.
If a pedophile is aroused by them, does that make the photographer a pedophile?
Should we all hate these for fear of being labeled as well?

It's sad we have to live in fear of other peoples fears.

That being said, these are posed and it seems a bit odd.  Kids innocently do strange things.  Catching them candidly in the act is one thing.
Potentially asking them to pose a certain way is something else, but I don't think it's porn.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 23, 2014)

Not pornographic. Society is getting over sensitive.
I also consider it "not my circus, not my monkey."


----------



## unpopular (Aug 23, 2014)

Bender said:


> If there was no such thing as pedophilia, then the thought that these were pornographic would never occur to anyone.
> The "evil" of the image is in the mind of the viewer.
> If a viewer then projects this supposed intent on the person who took the image, does that make the photographer evil?
> I can see these as innocent and somewhat interesting images.
> ...



You cannot assume the artist's intent, so you can't really say that the artist is a pornographer. Maybe he is, and in your view he just isn't very good at it, or his intent is to produce pornographic images within the bounds of the law. I'm not saying he is, but artist intent cannot be established beyond what the artist statement, if that cannot be trusted, then the artist could be up to anything.

At the same time though artist intent doesn't really have anything to do with the images. The question shouldn't ne whether the artist is a pornographer, but rather if these images are pornographic. That's a very different question from a postmodern point of view.


----------



## photoguy99 (Aug 23, 2014)

Porn is in the eye of the beholder. There are perverts here but the photographer is not one of them. I do suspect that he is deliberately provoking them, though.

Kids strike those poses. There's nothing smutty in it. The photographer did, however, pick these frames out on purpose. It's well known that these accusations may fly, and if they do, well, you just can't buy that kind of publicity.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 24, 2014)

If this is what people consider child porn then I am just as guilty taking pictures of my three sons as they grew up. Children pose and they play and they enjoy the innocence of life before a minority of over self righteous people tell them that they can't act like children anymore, because they think it's wrong. I have all kinds of pictures of my kids running around naked, it's what kids do, some more than others, they are in the family albums. If I ever had anyone tell me that the images of my kids were offensive I'd throw them out of my home. I'm sick to death of how a portion of society tries to force there own moral beliefs on other people. These politically correct people are more offensive to me than the pictures of this photographers daughter. The worst part is that they are also so spineless that they hide behind fake names and tags, if they believe so strongly that it's wrong have the guts to stand up and print their own name and address to protest it.


----------



## sashbar (Aug 24, 2014)

One has to be aesthetically blind not to see that the photog intentionally puts an innocent child into a controversial context. The use of colours, texture, background, posing and compositions, as well as pp is definitely intentional, and the guy knows what he is doing. It is not a pornography in my view, but the photog does create an unsettling atmosphere with sexual undertones. It is not a new thing in art, there were many examples before.  I am not a big fan of this kind of images, to put it mildly.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 24, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I don't find 2 year old children sexually attractive.


Yeah, because wouldn't you pretty much have to for this to be "porn"?

IMO, anyone who think this is porn has larger issues to work out.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 24, 2014)

People can see and find sexual images in absolutely everything they look at, it all starts in the mind of the person looking at the image. Did he create the images for sexual reasons, I doubt it.  The only person that will ever understand the reason behind them is the photographer himself. There are some images I just don't like, not for any other reason than, I don't like how they were obviously set up, beyond candid snaps of his daughter. Did he generate an exhibit based on the images, no, he based it on the negative response he got. If nothing was said about his images, few would have cared to see them.

One day people will understand that they generate more interest by negative comments expressed out loud, than if they don't say anything. If one person doesn't like them but tells ten people, not long after, 100-500-1000 people know. Some of the images are nice, but there is nothing amazing about them.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 24, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Pornographic?  No, I don't think so.  Appropriate?  Well, I'm not sure about that either.  Yes, we in North America are rather conservative about certain things, nudity being VERY high on that list, and if these were simply family photos?  Great, fine.  Fill your boots.  But...  they're not, they're being shown to the world, and the model does not yet have the level of development to know whether it's right or wrong.  In fifteen or twenty years, she could be ashamed of these image...  This reeks to me of someone trying to prove an artistic point; no different than horrifically injured people after a disaster or things of that nature.  Yes, you can do it.  Should you do it?  I don't think so.  He's just trying to push people's buttons.


Well, I'm glad that you have your finger on the pulse of the entire continent.

This is not porn, and BTW, we owe much of our free press to porn.


----------



## webestang64 (Aug 25, 2014)

As a lab tech and one who prints just about every kind of photo ever taken. I myself do not see these images as "porn". BUT, my boss would see it as "porn" and I'm sure would have to talk with the customer about not having us print his/her images. Don't get me wrong, I've seen and printed many a naked child in the throws of play or a kitchen sink bath, but it would be my job to show these "set-up" shots that certainly suggests "sex" to my boss and let him decide what course of action, if any to take.


----------



## Designer (Aug 25, 2014)

Not pornographic, IMO.


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 25, 2014)

It seems it is human nature to want to censure and control others.  It is ironic that so much is said about those photos, presumably in the US, a country that is using drones to attack ISIS or ISIL who are trying to enforce a religion that keeps women under wraps.
Alex Colville's work is on exhibit at AGO.  There is a tape of his daughter saying she feels lucky her father was an artist because there is a visual record of her family.  Most of his nudes were of his wife.  It is said, Colville hung his current work in the family living room for a couple of weeks before shipping it to the customer.  This made things interesting when the church ladies came for tea!  There is at least one nude of him because a critic complained he only painted nude women.  Several of his nudes are hanging on the walls at AGO with people streaming past all day long.  They are paintings, everything is posed.  Still not pornography. 
Most parents and grandparents can testify to being challenged at some time to keep a child in clothing on a nice warm day.  I'm pretty sure there have been similar photos to the ones shown that turned up in art galleries.  The main difference is that the art gallery in Internet form attracts many who would never go to a bricks and mortar art gallery.  And, most comments in a regular art gallery are not captured and provided to the artist.
The most disturbing comment I saw was from the licensed clinical social worker.  Clearly that license should be revoked.


----------



## cynicaster (Aug 26, 2014)

For crying out loud.  These pictures are not porno.  Those righteous indignant commenters are probably just lashing out like that in an attempt to repent for being turned on by the pictures.    

Still, if it were my daughter, I wouldn&#8217;t do this sort of thing.  Why?  Because I&#8217;d be afraid that for every few dozen open-minded artsy types appreciating the photos for what they are, there would be at least one creepo in black socks, sandals, bad mustache, and big bifocal glasses, sweating profusely in his dingy apartment, saving the images to his HDD for purposes that shall not be mentioned. 

Or maybe that wouldn&#8217;t happen.  Maybe it&#8217;s just that modern sensationalist rapid-fire media has insidiously made me suspect that pedophiles are lurking around every corner.  Either way, the idea of doing this sort of project isn&#8217;t important enough to me to bother taking that chance with a young girl under my direct care. 

For me, it&#8217;s not really the question of whether the images are porn or not that is troubling, it&#8217;s that this photographer seems to have noticed the kerfuffle he has generated and is now turning it up to 11, and attempting to ride a wave of plausible deniability in the name of creative expression, in saying &#8220;get off my case&#8230; it&#8217;s, like, _art_ dude&#8221;.   In doing so, I think he is placing his own publicity at a higher priority than the interests and well-being of his daughter, which is a crappy thing for a dad to do.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 26, 2014)

unpopular said:


> I don't understand what the point of these images are. I mean, really? You take a photo of your daughter topless with her hands in her pants dressed up like a cowgirl, and then cry foul when people say it is a little questionable?



Agreed!

Is it Porn? No but it's an obvious attempt to provoke emotions and controversy. I'm not going to debate it, say what you will. I can't see this turning out all that well in the future, that girl is going to grow up one day and some parents are going to have to explain why they exploited their toddler for 15 minutes of fame. I can just see this child turning to porn if their not careful.


----------



## Forkie (Aug 26, 2014)

I loved those photos and think the photographer is totally in the right.  

People really need to stop thinking that nudity is synonymous with sexuality.  Children are always naked.  Children will pull all their clothes off and run with their bits out and roll in the dirt at every opportunity - it's what kids do.  It is only the people who complained and got his social accounts taken down that have turned that child's body into anything even remotely sexual.  

My parents have pictures of me in the bath and running around the garden pulling on my winky when I was a toddler and they get brought out every time I take a new girl home to meet the parents just like everybody else's baby pictures and I'm not psychologically ruined because of it (well, maybe temporarily when I think "Really, Mum?  We're showing these again, are we?!").

People really need to stop being so prude and grown up.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 26, 2014)

Forkie said:


> I loved those photos and think the photographer is totally in the right.
> 
> People really need to stop thinking that nudity is synonymous with sexuality.  Children are always naked.  Children will pull all their clothes off and run with their bits out and roll in the dirt at every opportunity - it's what kids do.  It is only the people who complained and got his social account taken down that have turned that child's body into anything even remotely sexual.



We all have kids and we all have photos of our kids being kids. These are staged photos of a child doing adult poses. The photographer was looking to trigger an emotional and controversial response...they succeeded.


----------



## Overread (Aug 26, 2014)

I think though we do have a an element of the whole "nudity = sexual" thing going on though. What makes the adult pose adult is that we only associate it with nudity. Were several of these poses done without the nude aspect chances are we'd have thought nothing of them - its the fact that nudity is combined with them that we start to make the mental association. 

Part of that is how we are brought up, there is a big element of our childhood and adult life where nudity is something you really only have in the bathroom, sometimes the bed and sexual situations. So its no surprise that many people make the subconscious connection that sexuality is one of the primary times for nudity and thus vis versa. 

Indeed we have a very strange association with our bodies to the point where if people wish to go unclothed we call them nudists and they are typically isolated (whilst nude) from the rest of the population in niche pockets. Ergo we don't wish to associate them with "normal cloth wearing behaviour". 

So yes I can understand why people cry sexual or pornographic at poses like this because their only otherwise association with them in a nude or semi nude form is with regard to porn.


----------



## Forkie (Aug 26, 2014)

Overread said:


> I think though we do have a an element of the whole "nudity = sexual" thing going on though. What makes the adult pose adult is that we only associate it with nudity. Were several of these poses done without the nude aspect chances are we'd have thought nothing of them - its the fact that nudity is combined with them that we start to make the mental association.
> 
> Part of that is how we are brought up, there is a big element of our childhood and adult life where nudity is something you really only have in the bathroom, sometimes the bed and sexual situations. So its no surprise that many people make the subconscious connection that sexuality is one of the primary times for nudity and thus vis versa.
> 
> ...



That is exactly what the photographer is illustrating.  

A lot of people do associate nudity with sexuality and the point is that they shouldn't.  These are photos taken by a father of his daughter playing, having fun and posing for the camera.  I can't be 100% sure of course, but I suspect that he did not ask his daughter to put her hands down her pants or lift up her dress - I assume that she had an itch, or her Dad told her to say "cheese" and she did it with the kind of shy affectation of tugging on something that kids have when asked to say or do something for show.

If someone asks a toddler what they did today, they will often answer whilst pulling on their t-shirt, or pushing their pockets outward - it is a normal affectation of kids who are drumming up the confidence to speak for themselves or "perform" something.  

The complainers have assumed the intentions of the father because that is what _they_ think about nudity.  They have assumed the father and everyone else thinks the same way. When actually, based on the comments of that article, it's almost certainly exactly the opposite.

I find it quite worrying, actually, that a lot of people on here immediately equate nudity not even with sexuality, but _*pornography*_. This is a forum of photographers who surely have contact with a lot of fine art nudes even if they don't actually shoot nudes themselves - presumably you don't think that's porn, so why this?


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 26, 2014)

Overread said:


> I think though we do have a an element of the whole "nudity = sexual" thing going on though. What makes the adult pose adult is that we only associate it with nudity. Were several of these poses done without the nude aspect chances are we'd have thought nothing of them - its the fact that nudity is combined with them that we start to make the mental association.



I think I understand what you're saying. 

I'm not really bothered by the nudity aspect, I get people posting photos of their naked toddlers all the time on my Instagram account and think nothing of it. It's the idea that this person has combined nudity with adult poses that has my feathers ruffled.


----------



## Forkie (Aug 26, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I think though we do have a an element of the whole "nudity = sexual" thing going on though. What makes the adult pose adult is that we only associate it with nudity. Were several of these poses done without the nude aspect chances are we'd have thought nothing of them - its the fact that nudity is combined with them that we start to make the mental association.
> ...



Sorry, but it is YOU who has labelled those poses "adult", not the photographer.  Look at the child's face.  She is not even noticeably aware that she has her hands down her trousers - kids ALWAYS have their hands down their trousers!


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 26, 2014)

Sometimes I am really ashamed to be an American. 
Parents ranting and raving about how the tele and radio needs to be censored "for the sake of the children", schools not allowed to teach about sex or the human body "for the sake of the children", nudity and sensuality demonized "for the sake of the children"....
everything is the fault of "society" and the deviants that refuse to conform to the moral conservatives rulebook of 1840.
These ranting parents want everything that does not align with their own moral compass to be censured and suppressed because heaven forbid they actually take responsibility for their children and what is in their own  household.  These are the same kids that grow up believing they are entitled to a good job with good pay
without having to put in the work for it just because they exist.  Good job 'Murica. Strong work there. 

this is why we are moving to Canada after I finish my RN. 
at least up there, people let you into the lane when you turn your blinker on.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 26, 2014)

Forkie said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



my hands are down my trousers right now!
I am aware of it though....


----------



## pgriz (Aug 26, 2014)

These images act as a mirror to the viewers.  Those who see pornography should have a good look at their own points-of-view. 

There are kids who treat clothes as foreign objects.  There are kids who ape what they see on TV without having any idea what the poses or gestures mean.  Certainly, before the ages of 4-6, kids don't even project intent onto other people.  As kids get older, they become aware of other people's feelings and emotions, and they begin to understand that they can influence these emotions.  That's part of our "growing up" - become aware of others, and of the dynamics that occur between people.

That said, there ARE pedophiles and people with perverse fetishes out there, so while I may have images of the kids in our extended family in various levels nudity, I will not put these out onto the web for public viewing.


----------



## Forkie (Aug 26, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Sometimes I am really ashamed to be an American.
> Parents ranting and raving about how the tele and radio needs to be censored "for the sake of the children", schools not allowed to teach about sex or the human body "for the sake of the children", nudity and sensuality demonized "for the sake of the children"....
> everything is the fault of "society" and the deviants that refuse to conform to the moral conservatives rulebook of 1840.
> These ranting parents want everything that does not align with their own moral compass to be censured and suppressed because heaven forbid they actually take responsibility for their children and what is in their own  household.  These are the same kids that grow up believing they are entitled to a good job with good pay
> ...



Precisely this.  It is the very* lack *of a decent sex education and the over-censorship of television and radio that leads to people thinking this way. 

I was taught about puberty when I was 7-8, how babies are made by 12 and I had been shown how to put on a condom by 15 - all at school because we have a decent sex education curriculum here.  There is often talk of starting basic sex education earlier than that.

The pruder your society, the more sexualised it becomes.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 26, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> <snip> this is why we are moving to Canada after I finish my RN.
> at least up there, people let you into the lane when you turn your blinker on.



Jason, spend a week up in Canada, and you may change your mind.  While Canadians have a reputation for politeness, there are enough idiots up here to compensate.  And mix that up with the general propensity of IQ to diminish on either side of the "speed limit", and you can get some pretty dicy situations.  Then there's a portion of the population that thinks that "blinkers" is the motorist equivalent of a red flag, and speeds up on purpose when you're trying to merge.  Maybe our proportion of these "special" people is less than yours, but trust me, we got them too.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 26, 2014)

pgriz said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > <snip> this is why we are moving to Canada after I finish my RN.
> ...



ive spent quite a few weeks in Canada. Toronto, Winnipeg, Missausa...Misasaug..missassu....just outside Toronto. 
The wife is Canadian so we've spent some time up there off and on over the years. 
Always had a pretty good time up there, and we make sure we steer clear of Quebec.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 26, 2014)

Oh, but Quebec is where the fun is!  We play bumper cars with the orange cones, and then we play hide-and-seek (find the detoured exit or entrance), and once that wanes, there always the auto-maze (the uninformed call then highways under reconstruction), and if you're the gambling sort, you can take a ride on any of our well-maintained bridges and overpasses....


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 26, 2014)

Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyy for Canadian Wifey's!  Wifey plural. However, you'd spell that.  Wifies?


----------



## LCLimages (Aug 26, 2014)

I've seriously considered moving to Canada simply because if I break my leg, I won't have to file bankruptcy... but that's an entirely different political debate I don't feel like starting.

Are the pics porn?  Not to me.  But I do think the Dad is running with the publicity and not considering what may be best for his daughter.  I would not post them on a national scene... simply because of the morals and values of our society.  I don't agree with them, but I live here and have to take that into consideration.

I find it amusing that a great deal of formal newborn portraits are nude.  Yes the baby bits are covered up or concealed, but they're still naked.  What's the difference between a newborn and a 2 year old?  How come nobody cries PORNOGRAPHY at naked newborn portraits?  I'm sure some creepo out there finds them sexually appealing.  At what age does it become inappropriate?

My daughter has a 4" scar down the middle of her chest, from open heart surgery at 5 months old.  At age 4, she became aware of it and I told her about the surgery and how her heart is fixed now.  On the first day of preschool she ran into the classroom and told the first kid she saw "my heart was broken, but now it's fixed!!"

The next year, she got reprimanded in Kindergarten for pulling her shirt up in the lunch room.  She got sent home with a note about inappropriate behavior, nudity, blah blah.  I had to roll my eyes some.  I highly doubt my 5 year old was showing her classmate her boobs.  If she was even aware of what she was doing to begin with, more than likely she was showing him her scar and telling him all about her broken heart.  Still, her father and I had a chat with her about keeping everything covered and not showing her private parts to others.  That is a talk every child should have, and that part didn't bother me.  What was irritating is how the school automatically thought "OMG INAPPROPRIATE NUDITY, AHHHHH" at a 5 year old girl doing something every other little girl has probably done in public.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 26, 2014)

Forkie said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



You can play ignorant or play Coy all you want and blindly defend said photographer to the cows come home. I really don't give a damn. The fact of the matter is, this content was staged and designed with the idea of invoking an emotional response and creating controversy. The content being removed only supports my claim. People don't hang this sort of stuff above the fireplace.

I'm done with you, off to the ignore list.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 26, 2014)

i always amazed at the range of what people consider "offensive". 
on that note...my opinion of it is...who cares if you are offended? I sure don't.  If you are offended by pictures someone has taken, then don't look at them. 
it really is not a difficult concept to grasp, yet so many are unable to actually practice it.  If something offends thine eye then pluck it out!

I don't think all of those photos were staged. In fact, many looked just like a lot of family snapshots from when I was that age. 
That was the 70's mind you, where kids 2, 3 and 4 years old often ran around the yard in just their shorts, boy and girl alike. 
or running around the kiddy pool in the back yard naked, or running through the sprinklers...
nobody cared. it was just kids being kids. 
I had sex education in middle school, where we watched videos of actual births, learned how to put on condoms, and learned about reproduction, pregnancy, and STD's. 

now, in a world filled with violence, nudity, and sex on every TV channel, someones naked kid is somehow deemed "offensive".
Why havent those pagent shows been run off the air yet? talk about whoring out your children...
oh sure, "document" the crap out of those dead bodies, homeless people, and mothers openly breast feeding their babies in public, 
but don't you _*dare*_ take a picture of your 3 year old naked...

I really think we are regressing as a societal whole. 
people spend way too much time being offended instead of acting like an adult. 
people spend way too much time promoting censorship instead of being responsible for their children and teaching them right from wrong.
I guess its just easier to take away other peoples rights than it is to be a responsible human being.


----------



## limr (Aug 26, 2014)

I'm finding myself a bit torn on this.

I recognize that a lot of people in this country cry foul for things that aren't foul. And yes, the "porn" label gets thrown around a little too loosely at times. It's disturbing to know that, for example, movies will be rated R for mild sexual content and meanwhile, movies that show graphic violence are a-okay and rated PG-13. That seems like screwed up priorities to me.

At the same time, however, seeing sexual undertones in an image is NOT the sign of a perverted mind and it's not all the fault of the viewer. First of all, recognizing sexual content is NOT the same things as being sexually aroused by it. I'm sure I could google "midget donkey porn" and get tons of images whose intent is recognizably pornographic and yet, not be aroused by them. 

The intent of these pictures does not seem to be "appealing to a prurient interest" but the pictures also don't seem entirely innocent. The fact that I recognize this does not make me a pervert or a prude. It simply means that I am aware of the controversial elements that these pictures portray. Some of them seem less staged, but others seem to be deliberately provocative BECAUSE the poses are adult poses, and BECAUSE this connection between pose+nudity=sexuality exists. Do we really think the photographer is unaware of this connection? Or is he deliberately challenging people to think about that connection and question why we accept it so readily? Maybe it's to challenge our ideas of nudity and to start separating them from our ideas of sexuality.

Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit. 

But again I ask, could he _really_ be so unaware of how these pictures look and how some of them mirror sexually-toned images of adults? If he is, why is he shooting them? If he isn't, how can he be so unaware?

Even if he is trying to generate a dialogue on the issue, I haven't yet decided if I believe his use of his daughter as the center of the controversy is exploitative or not. It's not like he could use someone else's child, I suppose - that would be equally exploitative. 

Either way, the pictures are not pornographic, but they ARE provocative and most people don't really like to be challenged this way, so they get angry and demand the witch be burned.


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 26, 2014)

The only ones I have a problem with are the two in the road, because they are in the road.  The others are as normal as normal can be (to me).  Have no clue how someone can go from A to porn.  

I'm either way too liberal or way too naive.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 26, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> The only ones I have a problem with are the two in the road, because they are in the road.  The others are as normal as normal can be (to me).  Have no clue how someone can go from A to porn.
> 
> I'm either way too liberal or way too naive.



Maybe.... sensible, and with a sense of perspective???:hug::


----------



## limr (Aug 26, 2014)

pgriz said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > The only ones I have a problem with are the two in the road, because they are in the road.  The others are as normal as normal can be (to me).  Have no clue how someone can go from A to porn.
> ...



Hey man, that's just crazy talk! Or should I say Quebecois?


----------



## runnah (Aug 26, 2014)

Jeez this is typical overreaction. The media has made everyone think that their neighbor is a pedo/murderer/rapist/terrorist/Canadian. The reality is that crime in all forms is down drastically across the board.   

So simmer down and relax. Try avoiding the "news" for a couple days and see how your opinion changes for the better.


----------



## Overread (Aug 26, 2014)

I find I avoid the news for the most part - I just find that the vast majority of it is bad or depressing news stories; plus they are also often so far off in the world that I've little way to impact or make change. So you get a wall of sad things you can't change and eh I don't need that


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 27, 2014)

runnah said:


> Jeez this is typical overreaction. The media has made everyone think that their neighbor is a pedo/murderer/rapist/terrorist/Canadian. The reality is that crime in all forms is down drastically across the board.
> 
> So simmer down and relax. Try avoiding the "news" for a couple days and see how your opinion changes for the better.


Wait, my neighbor might be Canadian? Holy crap! Ok back later.  Headed out to get some barbed wire, some extra ammo and maybe a trap or two.


----------



## runnah (Aug 27, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez this is typical overreaction. The media has made everyone think that their neighbor is a pedo/murderer/rapist/terrorist/Canadian. The reality is that crime in all forms is down drastically across the board.
> ...




Try this, it's fool proof.


----------



## mishele (Aug 27, 2014)

LOL OMG!!


----------



## Civchic (Aug 27, 2014)

LCLimages said:


> I've seriously considered moving to Canada simply because if I break my leg, I won't have to file bankruptcy... but that's an entirely different political debate I don't feel like starting.
> 
> Are the pics porn? Not to me. But I do think the Dad is running with the publicity and not considering what may be best for his daughter. I would not post them on a national scene... simply because of the morals and values of our society. I don't agree with them, but I live here and have to take that into consideration.
> 
> ...




Ah!  I had almost the same thing happen (minus the heart surgery, yikes!).  My son is very...huggy.  He's just a physically effusive kid.  Then one day in library he pantsed another kid, which was HY-LARIOUS, so he did it a few more times.  The phone call I got from the principal was incredible.  I mean, yes, pantsing people is totally inappropriate, and his father and I had to give the whole private/public, your body is yours, his body is his discussion, which is a necessary part of life.  But the principal was bordering on questioning whether he'd been abused or not, as if he was a little mini sex offender.  He's FOUR!  He did something dumb, and his little friends laughed at it, so he did it again!


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 27, 2014)

runnah said:


> Jeez this is typical overreaction. The media has made everyone think that their neighbor is a pedo/murderer/rapist/terrorist/Canadian. The reality is that crime in all forms is down drastically across the board.
> 
> So simmer down and relax. Try avoiding the "news" for a couple days and see how your opinion changes for the better.



Yeah, actually, almost all my neighbours ARE Canadian!


----------



## pgriz (Aug 27, 2014)

CameraClicker said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez this is typical overreaction. The media has made everyone think that their neighbor is a pedo/murderer/rapist/terrorist/Canadian. The reality is that crime in all forms is down drastically across the board.
> ...



Well, Runnah thoughrfully listed all the types of bad apples separately, so that means that Canadians are not Pedophiles or murderers, or rapists, or terrorists...  I dunno.  Do we kill our victims with politeness?  That would probably take a very long time and be considered inhumane. Of course, he's probably also not aware that there are many different flavours of "Canadians", and his chosen trapping method would only work on a subset.  A very small subset.  :mrgreen:


----------



## runnah (Aug 27, 2014)

pgriz said:


> Well, Runnah thoughrfully listed all the types of bad apples separately, so that means that Canadians are not Pedophiles or murderers, or rapists, or terrorists...  I dunno.  Do we kill our victims with politeness?  That would probably take a very long time and be considered inhumane. Of course, he's probably also not aware that there are many different flavours of "Canadians", and his chosen trapping method would only work on a subset.  A very small subset.  :mrgreen:



Well a succession ballot is hard to find.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 27, 2014)

runnah said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Runnah thoughrfully listed all the types of bad apples separately, so that means that Canadians are not Pedophiles or murderers, or rapists, or terrorists...  I dunno.  Do we kill our victims with politeness?  That would probably take a very long time and be considered inhumane. Of course, he's probably also not aware that there are many different flavours of "Canadians", and his chosen trapping method would only work on a subset.  A very small subset.  :mrgreen:
> ...



Hah.  That didn't work either.  Very limited appeal.  But if you do need suggestions for bait, a 6/49 ticket would work.  Or a gift card for Timmies (Tim Horton, being merged with Burger King).  Apparently at least 50% of the Canadian population coast to coast visits a Tim Horton's shop at least once a day.  So you got at least a 50-50 chance with that.


----------



## mmaria (Aug 28, 2014)

LCLimages said:


> The next year, she got reprimanded in Kindergarten for pulling her shirt up in the lunch room. She got sent home with a note about inappropriate behavior, nudity, blah blah. I had to roll my eyes some. I highly doubt my 5 year old was showing her classmate her boobs. If she was even aware of what she was doing to begin with, more than likely she was showing him her scar and telling him all about her broken heart. Still, her father and I had a chat with her about keeping everything covered and not showing her private parts to others. That is a talk every child should have, and that part didn't bother me. What was irritating is how the school automatically thought "OMG INAPPROPRIATE NUDITY, AHHHHH" at a 5 year old girl doing something every other little girl has probably done in public.





Civchic said:


> Ah!  I had almost the same thing happen....  My son is very...huggy.  He's just a physically effusive kid.  Then one day in library he pantsed another kid, which was HY-LARIOUS, so he did it a few more times.  The phone call I got from the principal was incredible.  I mean, yes, pantsing people is totally inappropriate, and his father and I had to give the whole private/public, your body is yours, his body is his discussion, which is a necessary part of life.  But the principal was bordering on questioning whether he'd been abused or not, as if he was a little mini sex offender.  He's FOUR!  He did something dumb, and his little friends laughed at it, so he did it again!



I usually stay away from these conversations because they really irritate me. I grew up and live in a much different world.

As for the real subject of the thread my opinion is just the same as Leonore's...

As for the parts of posts I quoted, I really can't say anything nice about your school/principal nor I can imagine how would I react if they were telling that to me.

One of the reasons I don't like USA (I don't know much about Canada) is exactly this. You're making sensations out of everything and seeing "sex/perverts/inappropriate/harassment" almost everywhere (breastfeeding thread comes to my mind also)... c'mon, relax a bit! Why just can't you leave children to be children? 

We're going to the sea next week and I don't have a swimsuit, nor my children do (4yo girl and 2yo boy). I mentioned that to my hb so we can arrange buying everything we need for the vacation. I was already picturing some sweet girly swimsuit... his answer was: "Why do they need a bath suit?" 

We just don't think in "that" direction... I can't recall having or hearing any conversation related to the children's nudity in my whole life. Children like to be naked and that's just it, let them be.

Maybe we're too "relaxed" but I would rather be too relaxed than too "being burdened with some sexual connotation involved around children/toddler's nudity"


----------



## Forkie (Aug 28, 2014)

mmaria said:


> One of the reasons I don't like USA (I don't know much about Canada) is exactly this. You're making sensations out of everything and seeing "sex/perverts/inappropriate/harassment" almost everywhere (breastfeeding thread comes to my mind also)... c'mon, relax a bit! Why just can't you leave children to be children?
> 
> We're going to the sea next week and I don't have a swimsuit, nor my children do (4yo girl and 2yo boy). I mentioned that to my hb so we can arrange buying everything we need for the vacation. I was already picturing some sweet girly swimsuit... his answer was: "Why do they need a bath suit?"
> 
> ...



Absolutely all of this.

The world really needs to stop wrapping children in cotton wool lest the next generation of adults be a population of scared, immuno-deficient, hermits.


----------



## mmaria (Aug 28, 2014)

Forkie said:


> Absolutely all of this.
> The world really needs to stop wrapping children in cotton wool lest the next generation of adults be a population of scared, immuno-deficient, hermits.


 I wouldn't exactly use that third word, but I do agree with you..



hm... it's difficult to "not talking to you" these days...


----------



## Forkie (Aug 28, 2014)

mmaria said:


> hm... it's difficult to "not talking to you" these days...



You have to _mean_ it, Maria!  Hehe!


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 28, 2014)

Forkie said:


> The world really needs to stop wrapping children in cotton wool lest the next generation of adults be a population of scared, immuno-deficient, hermits.



Lol... well since my cell phone apparently was possessed and started this reply, I'll edit it into something hopefully at least someone readable.

I guess I'm a little confused by the above, I thought we already did that with the last generation.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 28, 2014)

Our job as parents should be to raise our children to be resourceful, capable, confident adults.  Confidence doesn't come from self-esteem exercises, but from knowing that you know what to do in any given situation, even one you have not encountered before.  Capability comes from exercising judgement, deciphering the situation to determine what's actually going on, and the ability to formulate a strategy to deal with that situation.  Resourcefulness comes from knowing that you're on your own, and that you have to figure out for yourself what to do.  And yet so many "parents" totally fail at this, because they are focused on making their kids lives better than their own - more toys, more privileges, more status.  They confuse the appearance of success with ability to be successful.  

I know of some families where the parents (people of my generation) had a hard life and were/are determined that their kids would enjoy all the benefits that they felt they were denied.  It's less about the kids, and more about the parents vicariously reliving their missing childhood experiences through their children.  And that is a problem.  This coddling does NOT help equip the kids with the abilities they need to navigate the unfriendly world.  Ultimately, they will pay the price for their parents' (selfish) desire to make right their own childhoods.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 28, 2014)

pgriz said:


> Our job as parents should be to raise our children to be resourceful, capable, confident adults.  Confidence doesn't come from self-esteem exercises, but from knowing that you know what to do in any given situation, even one you have not encountered before.  Capability comes from exercising judgement, deciphering the situation to determine what's actually going on, and the ability to formulate a strategy to deal with that situation.  Resourcefulness comes from knowing that you're on your own, and that you have to figure out for yourself what to do.  And yet so many "parents" totally fail at this, because they are focused on making their kids lives better than their own - more toys, more privileges, more status.  They confuse the appearance of success with ability to be successful.
> 
> I know of some families where the parents (people of my generation) had a hard life and were/are determined that their kids would enjoy all the benefits that they felt they were denied.  It's less about the kids, and more about the parents vicariously reliving their missing childhood experiences through their children.  And that is a problem.  This coddling does NOT help equip the kids with the abilities they need to navigate the unfriendly world.  Ultimately, they will pay the price for their parents' (selfish) desire to make right their own childhoods.




Amen.  Usually, the children end up total failures instead.


----------



## LCLimages (Aug 28, 2014)

mmaria said:


> I usually stay away from these conversations because they really irritate me. I grew up and live in a much different world.
> 
> As for the real subject of the thread my opinion is just the same as Leonore's...
> 
> ...



Yup, this.  I honestly want to leave this country.  But not only for just this type of reason.  Anyways, yes.  Agreed.


----------



## mmaria (Aug 28, 2014)

pgriz said:


> Our job as parents should be to raise our children to be resourceful, capable, confident adults.  Confidence doesn't come from self-esteem exercises, but from knowing that you know what to do in any given situation, even one you have not encountered before.  Capability comes from exercising judgement, deciphering the situation to determine what's actually going on, and the ability to formulate a strategy to deal with that situation.  Resourcefulness comes from knowing that you're on your own, and that you have to figure out for yourself what to do.  And yet so many "parents" totally fail at this, because they are focused on making their kids lives better than their own - more toys, more privileges, more status.  They confuse the appearance of success with ability to be successful.
> 
> I know of some families where the parents (people of my generation) had a hard life and were/are determined that their kids would enjoy all the benefits that they felt they were denied.  It's less about the kids, and more about the parents vicariously reliving their missing childhood experiences through their children.  And that is a problem.  This coddling does NOT help equip the kids with the abilities they need to navigate the unfriendly world.  Ultimately, they will pay the price for their parents' (selfish) desire to make right their own childhoods.


Completely totally agree!... and I wish there are more people like you Paul


----------



## pgriz (Aug 28, 2014)

mmaria said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Our job as parents should be to raise our children to be resourceful, capable, confident adults.  Confidence doesn't come from self-esteem exercises, but from knowing that you know what to do in any given situation, even one you have not encountered before.  Capability comes from exercising judgement, deciphering the situation to determine what's actually going on, and the ability to formulate a strategy to deal with that situation.  Resourcefulness comes from knowing that you're on your own, and that you have to figure out for yourself what to do.  And yet so many "parents" totally fail at this, because they are focused on making their kids lives better than their own - more toys, more privileges, more status.  They confuse the appearance of success with ability to be successful.
> ...



The thoughts I have expressed are not particularly original.  Thanks to Ed (oldhippy), who quoted a very good poem by Kahlil Gibran:

_On Children
Kahlil Gibran


Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.


You may give them your love but not your thoughts, 
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, 
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, 
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.


You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, 
and He bends you with His might 
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, 
so He loves also the bow that is stable.


_&#8203;


----------



## mmaria (Aug 28, 2014)

It's not about  a poem, quoting someone or speaking someone else's words (I do like that poem of course, and maybe we could add here "If", Rudyard Kipling)... it's about truly understanding what they/you are saying and acting like that.

I do hope you're acting like that!


----------



## pgriz (Aug 28, 2014)

Well, my "kids" are all grown up so they are on whatever trajectories they have chosen.  Each of them have paid their own way through university, working at various jobs to make enough money to pay tuition as well as living expenses.  They have all traveled, again pretty much on their own dime.  They are people who I enjoy spending time with, as fellow adults, not necessarily because we're related.  They all are self-motivated, strong and willful women (which probably has much to do with my wife, who is a very strong personality and very independent).  In relation to what this thread started with, when they were growing up we did not hide ourselves from our children - if I or my wife were in the shower, say, and someone needed to get something from the bathroom, it was not a huge problem.  The kids were told about their private parts early on, and clothing or lack of was just not an issue.  As parents, we have tried to give them the understanding of the cultural conventions and expectations, so that they could make their own decisions as they matured.  Also, don't forget that my wife IS an artist, and drawings/sketches/painting of the nude human form, of both sexes, were often lying about various tables and/or hanging on walls.  So...


----------



## mmaria (Aug 28, 2014)

may I live for a while with you folks?


----------



## pgriz (Aug 28, 2014)

We'll probably drive you nuts.   

Our house seems to be a favourite way-station for various people.  Two of our bedrooms are more or less continuously in use by either family (daughters, sister-in-laws, etc.) or friends who stop by for a few days or a few months. Dinners can become pot-luck affairs.  We're not particularly unique.  Most of our extended family has the same type of extended visit arrangements.  :hug::


----------



## Civchic (Aug 29, 2014)

mmaria said:


> It's not about a poem, quoting someone or speaking someone else's words (I do like that poem of course, and maybe we could add here "If", Rudyard Kipling)... it's about truly understanding what they/you are saying and acting like that.
> 
> I do hope you're acting like that!



First off, I *LOVE* that poem.  I want a tattoo of the word "If" in typewriter font on my wrist, actually.

Secondly, I'm in 100% agreement with you.  I'm a "free range" parent, I let my kids play and climb (and fall) and get dirty on their own, with only a watchful eye from afar.  They are strong and independant (same age as yours, mmaria, 2 and 4).  I get flack for it, but I don't care.  It was the way I was raised, and I turned out ok.


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 29, 2014)

It's a strange world, and a lot of what goes on makes me shake my head:  ?School  Is Out ? My Kids Are to Be Given to Me?: Dad Arrested After Objecting  When School Says He Must Wait to Take His Children Home | Video |  TheBlaze.com


This too:  http://www.salon.com/2014/07/30/another_mom_arrested_for_sending_her_kid_to_the_park/


----------



## mmaria (Aug 29, 2014)

pgriz said:


> We'll probably drive you nuts.
> 
> Our house seems to be a favourite way-station for various people.  Two of our bedrooms are more or less continuously in use by either family (daughters, sister-in-laws, etc.) or friends who stop by for a few days or a few months. Dinners can become pot-luck affairs.  We're not particularly unique.  Most of our extended family has the same type of extended visit arrangements.  :hug::



Hey!

Did you just say: "No, you can't live with us" in a polite way!?

Ok...ok... fine!!! I'll just find another nice family


----------



## pgriz (Aug 29, 2014)

No...  you're be welcome.  Like all the other people who drop in.  But the rules are, once the bedrooms are filled up, then it's either the couches or tenting in the back yard (and yes, that has happened too...).  And everybody cooks, washes, cleans....  you know.  Community spirit.


----------



## mmaria (Aug 29, 2014)

Civchic said:


> Secondly, I'm in 100% agreement with you.  I'm a "free range" parent, I let my kids play and climb (and fall) and get dirty on their own, with only a watchful eye from afar.  They are strong and independant (same age as yours, mmaria, 2 and 4).  I get flack for it, but I don't care.  It was the way I was raised, and I turned out ok.


 yeah 
I'm a "strange mom" for my surrounding... but I don't really care too, to be honest. 

My children go sleep early, wake up early, have a firm sleep. They play a lot outside and I'll rarely give them to sit in front of the computer. They eat homemade meals, drink organic milk, don't eat snacks. I know from whom I'm buying meat and they eat fish regularly....ok .... there's a lot more but we're getting a bit off topic


----------



## mmaria (Aug 29, 2014)

pgriz said:


> No...  you're be welcome.  Like all the other people who drop in.  But the rules are, once the bedrooms are filled up, then it's either the couches or tenting in the back yard (and yes, that has happened too...).  And everybody cooks, washes, cleans....  you know.  Community spirit.



I'm completely ok with all of that!... and I'm a good cook so you'll be glad when I get there 


*packing my stuff, tent and lots of trout


----------



## mishele (Aug 29, 2014)

mmaria said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > No...  you're be welcome.  Like all the other people who drop in.  But the rules are, once the bedrooms are filled up, then it's either the couches or tenting in the back yard (and yes, that has happened too...).  And everybody cooks, washes, cleans....  you know.  Community spirit.
> ...



Hey, I'm coming too!


----------



## mmaria (Aug 29, 2014)

mishele said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > pgriz said:
> ...


 sleeping with me in the tent?


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 29, 2014)

mmaria said:


> Civchic said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, I'm in 100% agreement with you. I'm a "free range" parent, I let my kids play and climb (and fall) and get dirty on their own, with only a watchful eye from afar. They are strong and independant (same age as yours, mmaria, 2 and 4). I get flack for it, but I don't care. It was the way I was raised, and I turned out ok.
> ...



Huh.. ok, maybe that's where I went wrong.  See I sent my kids out to be raised by wolves.  The wolves sent them back.  Lol


----------



## Overread (Aug 29, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > Civchic said:
> ...



Of course they did - you should sent them to the gorilla's first!


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 29, 2014)

Overread said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > mmaria said:
> ...



Why?  What did the gorilla's ever do to deserve that?

rotfl


----------



## mishele (Aug 29, 2014)

mmaria said:


> sleeping with me in the tent?



Why else would I go?!!


----------



## nugentch (Aug 29, 2014)

Sally Mann also was no stranger to controversy for her _Immediate Family_ work.  We should be able to differentiate between photography and pornography.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 29, 2014)

mishele said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > sleeping with me in the tent?
> ...



im good at pitching a tent. 
not a fan of camping though.


----------



## mmaria (Aug 29, 2014)

CameraClicker said:


> It's a strange world, and a lot of what goes on makes me shake my head:  ?School  Is Out ? My Kids Are to Be Given to Me?: Dad Arrested After Objecting  When School Says He Must Wait to Take His Children Home | Video |  TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> This too:  http://www.salon.com/2014/07/30/another_mom_arrested_for_sending_her_kid_to_the_park/


 crazy!

and... the second link gives me the same thing as the first one


----------



## mmaria (Aug 29, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > mmaria said:
> ...


... sorry, no men allowed near our tent


----------

