I just remember the Simpsons movie where Bart Simpsons penis is portrayed for a few seconds, I'm really sure that they don't have the balls to portray a child vagina
I think it might be the clinical word vagina vs wee wee, but vajayjay still would be weird in this context. Honestly, dont show strangers your kids genitals.
Yes, all genitals seem weird to show people. I don't even show them to my parents. I tried not to take them at all, and instead tried to take a few with angles that obscured any private areas. I think my parents have seen a couple of those, but I don't even send them.
Perhaps the comic is from the mindset 40 years ago. I could easily see parents of that era doing this and thinking it was fine.
I think it's more that adults sexualizing children wasn't considered a frequent risk, people didn't think anyone they knew would look at babies that way. Gen X parents really shifted a lot in terms of culture in the US, under their generation child sexual abuse cases have dropped significantly, and that's adjusting to unreported numbers.
I can't say world wide, but in the U.S., home photography was not new 30-40 years ago. I was a kid 30 year ago and I had real camera and various disposable ones over time. Maybe home videography was becoming more common 30-40 years ago, but photography had been around.
Eh. I have plenty of pictures of my daughter naked as a baby. The weird part of this is showing off the naked picture to a stranger on the bus and making mention of the genitals in specific.
Anyway, everyone knows that naked baby pictures are used to torture children in front of their serious romantic partners brought home for the first time. This has not happened in my 14-year-old daughter's life yet, but I hope to one day have this privilege that comes with parenting.
Yep, my wife has seen my little baby wiener. The awkward teenage pictures were far more embarrassing though. Hers are buried in a hoarder house so I might never get to see her embarrassing school band photos.
Dude, this has been a traditional way for parents to embarrass their adult children in front of their partner for decades. My wife has seen my naked baby pictures without my parents even showing them to her. And I've seen hers. What's the big deal? It's not like either of us found them sexy.
They're baby pictures. We're not talking about something erotic here. Naked babies are not some sort of scandalous thing. In most cultures, they're normal.
We're not talking about social media, we're talking about the significant other of my child. Or even relatives. I didn't get my daughter's permission to take her photo when she was a baby, so I shouldn't have sent a photo to my father on the other side of the country based on this reasoning.
used to torture children in front of their serious romantic partners brought home for the first time.
Things were different when we were kids. It's a fucked up thing to psychologically abuse your (presumably) teenage kids like that and objectively people know that. (Your daughters) consent in the subject is the only thing that matters. The only reason anyone is giving you a pass is because you're FlyingSquid, but maybe leave those pictures in the closet until closer to the wedding.
Oh please. It's not psychological abuse. It's "torture" the same way telling the story about the time they told a lady in the checkout line, "I came out of my mommy's bagina!" when they were three to an adult child's partner is torture.
You show me an example of anyone suffering PTSD because their parents showed their partner baby pictures.
Yeah saving it for their long term partners (if you have to) is probably a better idea than showing them during the first meeting.
And please don't dismiss other peoples trauma because you didn't experience it personally, childhood trauma takes many different forms, some we're only just becoming aware of.
I didn't dismiss anyone's trauma, I'm asking if that has ever resulted in anyone's trauma, a parent showing their adult child's partner a picture of them naked as a baby.
I mean if nothing else, not as a "torture," showing the partner the first couple of pictures of the kid as a baby should be acceptable to people just as a "this is what they looked like when it all began" and they don't come out with clothes on. They also are unable to understand the concept of consent, let alone give it.
I would also suggest that if that did cause someone trauma, it would be because the parent was aware this sort of thing would upset their child to that level and did it anyway. I think most parents wouldn't actually show the pictures if they knew it would cause the child real psychological pain, because that isn't the point in doing it. It's usually a form of good-natured ribbing, not malicious.
I didn’t dismiss anyone’s trauma, I’m asking if that has ever resulted in anyone’s trauma
How can I speak for every person? Has it caused someones trauma? Yeah I bet it has. You initially made it sound like you were showing bath pics to every teen-aged first date that came over which would obviously be pretty fucked up.
showing the partner the first couple of pictures of the kid as a baby should be acceptable to people just as a “this is what they looked like when it all began"
Yeah we agree, baby pics are fun, I especially like noting family resemblances as everyone ages. My sister made my mom a big set of scrapbooks/albums for each of her kids one year, no naked baby pics were included. They're great fun to look at, highly recommend.
They also are unable to understand the concept of consent, let alone give it.
This is the primary issue, without even going into the obvious power dynamic between child and parent when it comes to consent later. Where do a childs rights end and parents begin?
I would also suggest that if that did cause someone trauma, it would be because the parent was aware this sort of thing would upset their child to that level and did it anyway.
I would suggest that most parents think they're doing great doing it just like it's always been done (i.e. generational trauma) and "they turned out just fine." but there are definitely some intentionally abusive ones too. The child with the intentionally abusive parent is obviously going to have way more trauma.
I think most parents wouldn’t actually show the pictures if they knew it would cause the child real psychological pain, because that isn’t the point in doing it.
The "real psychological pain" part makes it look like you're dismissing trauma, just because it's not something you experienced doesn't mean it isn't valid and while intent matters so does the result. I'm sure you specifically are a good parent and you're very conscious of your kids mental headspace but by default I'd say save it for the fiance if you just have to have them.
This is the primary issue, without even going into the obvious power dynamic between child and parent when it comes to consent later. Where do a childs rights end and parents begin?
Again, if we argue that children have to consent to get their photo taken, no one should take any photos of their children below the age where they can do that. That means no baby pictures at all.
The “real psychological pain” part makes it look like you’re dismissing trauma
You have no evidence of this trauma. You're just guessing.
Spoken like someone who's never been in therapy or studied psychology, people bet and guess and infer stuff all the time; it's a "soft" science for a reason.
That means no baby pictures at all.
Specifically pictures of their genitals, I feel like no baby genital pics is a good default, yes, what a weird hill to die on.
You have no evidence of this trauma.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
You're just guessing.
Guessing, inferring, surmising, call it whatever helps you sleep at night. I think of it as erring on the side of safety and respect for my kids. Not having pics of their junk doesn't make my life any worse, there's only downsides for them.
Again, babies don't come out with clothes on. The idea of expecting consent for sending grandparents pictures of what their newborn grandchild looked like when it was just a few seconds old is ridiculous.
And yes, psychology is a soft science. That doesn't mean that you personally can claim that people have been traumatized by this without showing any evidence of it just like you can't claim that people have been traumatized by a Luke Skywalker action figure without showing any evidence of it. You can infer whatever you like. Inferences aren't truth and they are based on personal biases.
Suggesting that because psychology is a soft science, you can make whatever claim about trauma you infer is ridiculous. Where did you get your psychology degree from, anyway?
We're talking about pictures of your kids genitals. What a weird fucking hill to die on. Its your kid, take all the pics you want, probably don't get caught with them on your phone.
It's ok to just say "you know what you might have a point" and walk away sometimes my dude.
And yet I don't think you do have a point without evidence,
My point is childhood trauma takes a lot of forms and "good natured" showing naked pictures of your children to potential romantic partners the first time they visit (the thing we were talking about) is undoubtedly traumatic for a portion that experience it. I'm not aware of any specific studies studying the impact of showing nude photos of your children to their potential romantic suitors but I do know that childhood trauma has been studied and has far-reaching, unknown impacts. Even if the victim often doesn't recognize the instance as abuse until much later in life, if ever.
Sorry... you're saying a baby feels trauma and shame when it has its picture taken and that leads to psychological problems as an adult and creates more trauma when you show that photo to their partner?
Also, virtually every new parent has photos of their baby naked on their phone. And it's legal. I have no idea why you don't think it would be. A nude picture of your own baby is not child porn. No one has ever been put on a sex offender list for having a picture of their child just after it exited the womb on their phone. What a silly thing to say.
you’re saying a baby feels trauma and shame when it has its picture taken and that leads to psychological problems as an adult and creates more trauma when you show that photo to their partner?
You're being willfully obtuse. The trauma and shame comes from the picture being displayed for the parents amusement to potential romantic partners the first time they come over, presumably in their early teens.
virtually every new parent has photos of their baby naked on their phone.
Most I've seen are completely swaddled and only their little faces are visible.
And it’s legal.
Where did you get your law degree?
I have no idea why you don’t think it would be. A nude picture of your own baby is not child porn.
I mean, I personally agree with that.
No one has ever been put on a sex offender list for having a picture of their child just after it exited the womb on their phone.
Crazier shit has happened and we're not talking about gross little bloody newborns fresh out of the box. In every baby pic I've ever seen (and in the context of this comic); they're bath pics, specifically ones with their junk in it! It's weird, just place some bubbles or a wash cloth strategically or something it's not that difficult fuck.
Was the focal point of the photo on the child’s genitalia or pubic area?
"It seemed to be."
"Was the child who is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, given the age of the child?"
"They were naked."
"Was the child nude or fully or partially clothed?"
"Completely nude your honor."
That's how quickly that can be used against you and I for one don't have that kind of faith in our legal system.
Look, it's your kid you do whatever you want, we could argue back and forth all day, I'm sure you're a decent parent and handle things as appropriately as possible but for anyone else reading this maybe give some consideration to pictures you take of your vulnerable kids and what purpose those pictures serve, some strategic bubbles or a cloth make the picture 100% innocent and it becomes a non-issue.
can you provide evidence that has ever happened to any parent?
How could I even find that evidence? I don't have access to court records re custody battles and divorces or therapy notes from every doctor out there. I showed you links indicating that even unintended childhood trauma lingers into adulthood but you dispute showing embarrassing images could possibly be humiliating or that any parent could possible make a bad decision regarding them.
seem to think you can make any claim you like without evidence
I never claimed it happened, I claimed it could be bad which is self evident to me but apparently not everyone. My hypothetical illustrated how easily innocent actions could be misconstrued, nothing more.
get indignant about it when you aren’t automatically believed.
My only point here is that maybe taking pictures of your naked children and parading them around when their first boy/girlfriends start coming over (the thing you said it was for) maybe isn't the best idea and could be saved for a time later, when they're ready to show people. If anyone is indignant it's someone who feels their parenting skills are being questioned.
everyone knows that naked baby pictures are used to torture children in front of their serious romantic partners brought home for the first time. This has not happened in my 14-year-old daughter’s life yet
What age did you start meeting your partners parents? Gonna be any time now isn't it?
Ah, so you ignored virtually every single other post I made since then where I clarified and just focused on that one. I see. Well yes, that does make it easier to make such silly criticisms, doesn't it?
I think his point is that he's the exception and he would be very upset if he got thrown in with all the pedo's.
I agree with what you said, such a strange hill to die on. He wont accept any variation like covering just their genitals or making them off camera. Its like its very important he has baby dicks and vaginas saved on his computer and phone.
And of course since he would never hurt his own children (said every parent who inadvertently abuses their children), we shouldn't make him adhere to the rules the rest of us do.
All hail king flying squid I guess. I'm starting to realize that quantity of posts does not equal quality of character.
It would be legal on Google Drive too. I challenge you to find me one example of a parent getting in legal trouble for having a photo of their baby naked on either their phone or on Google Drive.
Legal trouble is not the only kind of trouble.
I just didn't link a news article because I thought it was widespread enough.
Try "guy loses google account false positive" on Google Search
It will still cause you problems if you are reliant on it though.
I am also trying to slowly get enough alternatives that random Google decisions don't cause me misery, but...
Oh yeah, I would never rely on it for plenty of other reasons. I do back up some photos to it, but it's one of multiple backups. I look at it as a redundancy.
Well, simply that, a false positive on the drive gets the whole Google account removed. Not just the drive access, but all your past mails (and the future mails you will receive because you are unable to tell others that you had to change your Mail ID), all other accounts you made using said ID become harder to access and same for other Google services (paid or not) that you might be using at that moment.
And you can't even send a user data retrieval request.
Just wanted to say that I appreciate the nuanced debate here, and that neither of you resulted in insulting each other after getting to the bottom of it. More of this on Lemmy!
The real psychological pain comes from the realisation that your parent never really cared about your boundaries.
They'll even give your ITR account OTP to someone who will block you out from it and it will be your fault for trusting them with it, but I guess this example is too irrelevant.
The teenage years are around the time when children start evaluating their own actions and start having their own personality (which is kinda related to the rebellious stage). They realise the power dynamic between them and their parent which they were until then not conscious about.
It is the parents' actions during this time that determines what their evaluation of the past power dynamic will be and so will be their decision of what relationship they will have with their parents once they are financially independent.
So, whether or not the experience is traumatic, your future relationship with your child depends upon how much they care about who sees their pictures.
People are replying and reporting trauma, you are saying you don't believe them, that its not good enough. Besides the fact its absurd that you think psychology or sociology is even close to solving or understanding nearly any of the topics we are talking about.
When it comes to psychology, self reports are evidence, and you disagreeing with that doesn't change anything.
I experienced trauma from my childhood. It wasn't exclusively the pictures but it was a part of it. And my mom says the same bullshit you are saying now.
But I'm sure you'll just be so in tune with your kid, and have perfect adherence to unassailable morals, so they will make it through this abuse just fine. I don't understand why you are so proud of that fact, but here we are.
And I'm sure you'll say I made this all up for the sake of argument, since that's exactly what you told the first person.
Are you now accusing me of having a child porn collection? That is a very serious accusation. You definitely should contact lemmy.world admin right away. They have my contact information because I've given it to them as a moderator, so they can call the police.
You will do that, right? Because of my child abuse and child porn collection? You're not just all talk, are you?
You can make all the jokes you want, you have no idea if that exact picture of your daughter features prominently in a CP collection somewhere, right this instant.
Oh I'm sorry I'm supposed to believe you are replying in good faith right now? I'm alright with ending this here if you have nothing more to say about it.
Good faith or not, you made a claim that I am abusing my daughter and have a collection of child porn. Your claims, not mine.
So if you do not contact anyone over it, you are enabling and endorsing child abuse and child porn. Based on your claims. Whether or not my replies are in good faith have no bearing on your belief, if it is sincere, that I possess child pornography.
Either you want to do something to stop someone you know has child pornography or you don't.
I promise I won't tell anyone about your child porn collection. Its okay you don't have to worry.
You really should put more than just a cursory thought into your replies you know. Gotchas only work if you can't pause to think about how stupid of a point you are making right now.
I like how you think saying I'm required to do something actually makes me required to do something. I am not the child porn police. I am not responsible for reporting every murmur of child porn, or abuse.
I sincerely believe that the naked picture of your child on your computer/phone/physical image is CP because thats one of its possible uses, and you have no idea it is not being used as porn right now. I also sincerely believe I have no obligation to report absolutely anything about this. Its a fucking discussion over the internet with a stranger, you really think theres even an authority for me to report you to?
I also sincerely believe you are just an idiot, rather than a pedophile, and you just have a very inflated ego and sense of self righteousness. I'm sure you've never been wrong, but if you were it was for a good reason, right?
I promise I won’t tell anyone about your child porn collection. Its okay you don’t have to worry.
I see. Then you're fine with child pornography.
I also sincerely believe you are just an idiot, rather than a pedophile
So the multiple times you accused me of having a child pornography collections were lies? What a horrible thing to lie about, my teenage daughter having pornographic photos of her as a child. Why would you say that about a teenage girl?
I wonder if you would tell her that to her face and then say, "actually, I just think you are the child of an idiot?"
I never said you dont have a collection of CP. You have more than one picture right?
I mean if she's on here I can tell her right now? Flying Squid's daughter, I sincerely believe your dad to be an idiotic blowhard who thinks his powers of prediction are near limitless.
This is why I accused you of bad faith. Never said any of that. Would be nice if you'd stop building straw men to attack.
Is there a reason I should hide my opinions of her father from her? What abuse am I supposed to be levying here.
You probably shouldn't bring her into a conversation with adults if you don't want her hearing others opinions of you.
You know you and your daughter could both go your whole lives without that picture ever being a problem, and I'd still be against its existence right?
So, what words are you going to put in my mouth next? Seems to be getting harder and harder for you to twist your opinion into fact.
Here I'll put it simply for you: I think the pictures you currently have are immoral to have taken, and immoral to keep now. I think your daughter is the victim of this. I dont know if she will ever be harmed by it, but the fact that she could is enough. I dont think I'm required to report you for having admitted having these pictures. I dont think anyone's required to do anything based on simple comments on an anonymous forum. If you were in my community, and you asked how I felt about this, I would tell you all this to your face and hope that changed your mind, but past that I wouldn't do anything probably more out of distrust of our legal system than anything though. If you think I'm awful for that, I'm okay with that. Maybe we are both awful people. Did I miss anything?
Edit: oh I also think you can have CP and not be a pedophile. Like I said, that just makes you stupid.
You said all of that. You said I had child porn of her, which means we had an incestuous relationship. You said I was stupid. Intelligence is hereditary, so you're telling her that her genes are defective too.
That's what I think you're awful for. Saying that you would tell that to a 14-year-old girl.
If that's what those words mean to you and your daughter, sure but that's not the same as me saying them. Those are all your ideas and I dont endorse a single one of them, nor would I say them to your daughter.
Why do you think you can just change what words I say to be other more offensive words and then attack those?
I think you unintentionally abused your daughter by creating child porn of her.
Without the intent of pedophilia you could just be ignorant, but since you are defending it actively, this makes you stupid.
You are willfully ignorant, which is what I mean when I call people stupid or an idiot.
If you really want to insist that number 1 there equals an incestuous relationship then sure I'll bite the bullet on that one. I just don't think its relevant because neither of you knew it at the time nor intended the situation to be incestuous. It was accidentally incestuous maybe, but that's entirely your fault because you are the adult.
Essentially, you were ignorant then and now your an idiot, but it was wrong the whole time.
You show me an example of anyone suffering PTSD because their parents showed their partner baby pictures.
i literally provided myself as an example in this, i quite literally said that i would consider it a violation of privacy, and no that's not PTSD, but PTSD is the extreme end of things here. We aren't just talking about PTSD.
You claiming that it would give you PTSD is not evidence that anyone has suffered or is suffering from PTSD because of it. That's just you making an assumption about a situation you've apparently never actually faced.
It's amazing that you got this far into the conversation and, despite my repeated mention of a daughter, you think my baby had testicles. And I never suggested she was anything but cisgendered, so I'm really not sure how you missed that. But based on the rest of your silly question, I have a few guesses.
Only someone who knows nothing about external female anatomy thinks "nards" could possibly be a gender neutral term. But do tell me what plural parts of her genitalia that would show up in a typical naked baby photo would count as "nards."
Believe it or not, I don't have a single photo of my daughter's ovaries or fallopian tubes. They're way too far up inside her for a camera to capture.
Based on that reasoning, I should not show anyone any photo of my child until they were old enough to consent to them being taken.
based on that reasoning i shouldnt expose my child to the visual perception of other people who exist outside in the chance that one of them non consensually perceives my child.
You wouldn't expose your child naked in public, why would you expose them naked on picture?
I’m not embarrassed by my body and if that’s what her partner really wants to see, I don’t care.
that's great, the implication there is that you're still showing it to other people, and if we're talking family and friends, i don't know many people that would want that.
i mean, most people use bathrooms. Considering that human waste is literally a biohazard, i feel like doing anything else would be quite rude at best, and arguably a crime at worst.
I might note here as a Finn that this prudishness concerning the naked human body seems very American.
You're not allowed to go to a public sauna in your swimming wear here. And if you're a dad and have a small daughter, you're obviously going to have her in the men's changing room. And when I was a kid, I was in the women's changing room with my mom.
Even at parties it's not uncommon to have a mixed-gender sauna where everyone is naked. I'd say most commonly it's women wearing a towel and men wearing nothing, or if it's in a sauna near a beach/lake then people will have their swimwear on most times.
Still, just being naked isn't considered sexual in any way. You can even see the non-sexual nature for about 50% of the people who are naked. (Vis-a-vis their lack of visible arousal.)
I was so confused by their comment that I totally misread it. Not only are they saying that most people wouldn't change a baby's diaper in public, but that it isn't necessary sometimes. Like there's always a place to do it discreetly when they've just had an explosion?
I've noticed through-out the years that a lot of people on forums like Reddit and Lemmy have very weird and unrealistic ideas about what having kids is like.
idk i've grown up around a family with various siblings, and my experience has generally been that doing much of anything with a baby, especially one that shits itself is often more work than it's worth.
maybe this shits uniquely american, but i can't recall anybody just changing their babies diaper in public. In public bathrooms sure (a car even? Though i don't consider that public), there's changing stations there, and it's to be expected, but certainly not just, in the middle of a park.
hence why i said rude at best, because yknow, human fecal matter has never been known to cause disease and sickness in other humans. Let alone what kind of sanitary problems that would cause in most places.
Im sure people carry kit with them, but shit happens (literally) and i would certainly want to be in a bathroom rather than not be in one, because that way it's atleast contextually contained and expected. Also do you not have a car? That would certainly explain some of this.
That's a tradition that ended a long time ago. I'm talking about traditions that are ongoing. Also traditions that, despite someone else's claim, probably don't cause any psychological harm, at least most of the time.
I think you may be surprised and hopefully disturbed by this UNICEF article.
Despite a steady decline in this harmful practice over the past decade, child marriage remains widespread, with approximately one in five girls married in childhood across the globe. Today, multiple crises – including conflict, climate shocks and the ongoing fallout from COVID-19 – are threatening to reverse progress towards eliminating this human rights violation. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals call for global action to end child marriage by 2030.
So no, it was not "a long time ago." It's "hopefully by 2030."
Also traditions that, despite someone else's claim, probably don't cause any psychological harm, at least most of the time.
Oh, so as long as you don't believe the person and can therefore invalidate their feelings without guilt, and it only psychologically hurts "some" people who you I suppose arbitrarily believe over the ones you don't, it's fine?
Also traditions that, despite someone else's claim, probably don't cause any psychological harm, at least most of the time.
Actually you asked for nothing, you made a whole lot of assumptions instead. And
evidence that it hurts anyone
Here again you invalidate the feelings of those telling you with their own words that they don't like it. The evidence they don't like it is them telling you they don't like it, you don't need a scientific paper to corroborate that some people find it objectionable, you just dismiss them because you want to partake in the behavior they find objectionable.
I absolutely asked for evidence. I just didn't ask you for evidence. Weird that you apparently read through my comments and didn't see that.
And not one person has told me that they were personally hurt by this happening to them. They have just said that it is wrong.
You show me the person in this thread who said it caused them pain. I can't invalidate feelings that people don't have. Someone not liking something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing causes trauma or any sort of psychological damage to anyone unless it caused them that damage.
And now I am asking you for evidence. Please quote the person that was hurt by their parents doing this.
Yes, if you can't provide evidence for something I have no reason to believe you. I'm not sure how that's a lame excuse. It's why I'm an atheist as well. But you do you.
I'm not sure why you think I would talk about me showing a child my daughter's baby photos since we were talking about me showing them to my adult child's partner. Do you think my daughter will be a pedophile when she's an adult and that I would support her in that or something?
Well it's usually done to teen children's teen partners ime, but ok fine I hope your adult childs adult partner asks for copies for later, the age of the person making the creepy comment is really not important but I think it's worse if they're adults so I'll roll with it lol. Maybe she doesn't know her husband's proclivities, I'm not sure most pedos advertise it willingly, but he's "tooootally not gonna spank it he just wants it for archival purposes" lol.
If your wife says "not tonight I have a headache" do you ask for evidence of hypertension? If she says something you did made her upset do you ask for evidence in a peer reviewed paper on why X could possibly be psychologically damaging? I'd bet the answer is "no I take her word at face value because it is her feelings after all." But fuck the feelings of others? Would I have to begrudgingly have sex with you for you to take my word about my feelings?
My wife and I have her and my naked baby photos. We didn't have to ask for copies, they just gave us the family photo albums. And when parents die, that often happens automatically. It kind of feels like you don't know how any of this works.
And now you're comparing showing someone a naked baby to marital rape? Really?
I didn't say "baby photos" I said "if your wife tells you she is upset about something do you ask her for peer reviewed studies on how that something could possibly psychologically effect someone negatively, or do you just believe she is feeling how she says she is feeling?"
What on Earth does that have to do with parents causing their adult child psychological trauma by showing their partner naked baby pictures?
Did you think I meant showing it to their partner if they were adamant that you did not do so and it was going to hurt them? Did I ever even imply such a thing?
You seem to think people being upset about things is inconsequential without it going through a peer review process, I'm just trying to gauge where your limit is for that.
Where do you draw the line on how much discomfort/sadness/anger your actions cause before it becomes a wrong thing to do?
I understand embarrassing your adult child by showing child porn of them to their partner is below your bar, but can you describe how you figure out which side you are on?
Do you disagree any traditions that are designed to embarrass someone? What about hazing in college or the military? What about making fun of girls over voice chat? If these are bad examples to you, can you come up with something else and answer about that?
Of course there are levels of unacceptable. And the level is above showing someone's adult partner a naked baby picture for fuck's sake.
I'd ask you if there is any level of discomfort that is acceptable? Tickling causes a level of discomfort, but also pleasure. Should I not tickle a child? Punishing a child when they do something wrong causes them discomfort and sadness and anger. Should time outs be considered child abuse?
Depends if you are talking legally or morally. I disagree with a lot of whats legal. Your examples are silly and easy to answer:
If they want to be tickled than yes, if not than no.
Punishing the child is for their own best interest, not to get them to learn to listen to the king of the house better. We make decisions for them because they aren't capable of making the best decisions for themselves.
So how exactly does taking pictures of them naked when they are babies or children, help them in any way?
Its a stupid tradition. Embarrassing people is always bad. Purposely hurting people is always bad. Regardless of the trauma it causes it would still at best make you an incredibly selfish person.
Okay, well someone else claimed that they did have that trauma and I don't disbelieve them. I would have had a more substantive response to their post, but they decided to accuse me of child abuse.
Edit: and now, they are saying I have a child porn collection. So I'm not sure I believe their claim at this point either.
You do understand that to cultures where this isnt the norm, it sounds ridiculous to show naked pictures of your child when they were an infant to, well anyone?
It being a tradition has no bearing on it being awful or not. Circumcision is a tradition.
I'm sure you can find a more modern way to embarrass your child without resulting to CP?
I personally have no use for pictures of baby genitals, but you really do huh? It even makes you upset we want to take away your baby genital pictures huh?
Is this some perverse form of individualism?
Edit: if you took a picture of you cleaning your daughters vagina out, and showed someone, yes that would be child porn and child abuse.
Again- they don't come out of the womb with clothes on. Are parents not supposed to take a picture of their newly-born child or should they put a fig leaf on them?
I've asked several times- if this is child pornography, find me an example of someone getting in legal trouble for having a naked photo of their own baby on their phone. One person.
Were you even in the room with your newborns? Both of mine were moved to a table, cleaned up, and swaddled. I would have had to literally interrupt them to take a genital picture of them.
But I guess where you live, they pause first and ask if you want a full naked body shot? Cool tradition, I know you love those.
I'm sure noone has been in trouble for ONLY having their naked child's pictures on their phone, but I'm sure those pictures have ended up in CP collections. I'm sure you have perfect opsec though so its fine.
Legality as side, since its not the law preventing me from abusing children anyways, I'm arguing that its morally wrong. Plenty of immoral actions are legal from my perspective.
Why does your perspective need baby genitals to be featured again?
No one paused anything. My wife gave my mother-in-law a camera and she took a picture because my wife asked her to. Then we sent that picture to my father and my mother who was on a layover in an airport.
I assume no one masturbated to it.
And who is featuring them? Certainly not me. Have I shown them to you? No. And i wouldn't.
And you can say, for certain, that noone has ever seen that photo without your permission? I guess you might have me here if its a physical photo locked in a safe somewhere.
Edit: although these had to printed at a business, where anyone working could have copied them
You also have this absolutely ludicrous idea in your heads that having a naked photo of your baby is child pornography. And yet none of you have an example of a parent facing legal repercussions for it. And somehow that doesn't clue you in that it is, in fact, not child pornography.
And then there's the Finnish guy who is telling you all what prudes you are. One of the few sane takes.
Thanks, please carry on telling me what kind of ideas I have. Forgive me for thinking babies have some rights.
No one said it's child porn. It's just that when parents show off your naked baby pictures it gets uncomfortable for everyone, as many here have expressed.
Multiple people have also said it's wrong to do that, so.. carry on cherry picking I guess. But sure, if you think it's ethical to go around flashing your kids genitals, then carry on I guess. You can't fix stupid.
If it's child porn, you show me one single parent who has gotten in trouble for just taking a picture of their baby when it's naked and showing that picture to their adult child's partner.
I keep asking for evidence that anyone, anywhere has had lasting mental health damage from this and congratulations, you're the latest to just assume it happens without evidence.
My response, when my mom showed my first partner naked baby pictures was to nudge my partner and say "don't worry, I'll send you some more recent ones.
My mom super didn't appreciate the joke, but she never pulled out baby pictures for future partners.
"I wish I didn't know about societal and existential problems of humanity. I was happier when I didn't. I hate myself now everyday, I wish I had the courage to stop my suffering."
At its core it usually is, but they often push it outward. My experience with a conservative religion was mostly just self hatred at not being good enough too honestly, but my personality was never much on the conservative axis. Or rather, when I did stuff on that level I never felt good about them.
That is, anger, outrage, paranoia, and ignorance are their comfort zone. It’s what they know. And in my little corner of the world, the more vociferously conservative they are, the less self-aware they are about it.
It’s really pervasive in ways I never truly realized until way too far into adulthood when I was working to get that shit out of my own head.
I feel.like we generally give women a pass on A LOT of weird behaviors about children.
That does include elevated attention to the genital area (seriously, why? Leave our genitals alone ffs), borderline fetishizing breastfeeding, and also a lot of other stuff.
Like, for example, I had several women independently telling me how baby feces smell nice and milky. Like, what the hell and why do y'all feel it's appropriate for a casual conversation???
Or that they love to smell baby feet. Huh? Funny thing I first got those stories after seeing a TV ad (was a while ago) with a woman burying her face in baby feet.
I can only assume this is either a result of hormonal shifts throughout pregnancy, or that there's plenty more female pedophiles than we knew.
It's an illustrative comment though. Our society teaches us not to view women as predatory, and to always view men as such - so that creates the difference between a woman talking about baby anatomy and a man talking about baby anatomy.
People are too weird about genitals. Our culture finds it so uncomfortable to talk to their sons about cleaning their penis that we started cutting the foreskin off to spare them the embarrassment.
This doesn't make it justifiable, but circumcision goes back a lot longer than our culture has existed. If Judaism had won out instead of Christianity, it could have been even more widespread than it is now. Some Muslim sects also mandate circumcision, and they could be the ones ruling the world.
Unfortunately, circumcision is a particular form of mutilation that transcends cultures.
Unfortunately, circumcision is a particular form of mutilation that transcends cultures.
a lot of mutilation goes back centuries for human history. You can pick up any variety of mutiliation and it's been done, scarrification, penile subincisions, foot binding, skull stretching, i can keep going.
Just because it's historically common and pervasive doesn't mean we should consider it to be normal. The aztecs commited human sacrifice, and we think capital punishment is bad enough that we need to hide it away from the general public and make it "sterile" which in reality means using a completely botched medical injection process.
also what culture "should be" does not determine what it is now, i'm not sure the legality of naked baby photos to begin with tbh, i'm pretty sure they're still considered to be CP, unless legally stated otherwise somewhere. They wouldn't count as CSAM i think, since there's not abuse going on, but arguably it might count as CP still.
Depends where in the world you are. In the US it was popularized by Dr Kellogg to curb masturbation. He also recommended a few drops of carbolic acid applied to young girls clits to damage the nerves and avoid what he called "abnormal excitement".
Dude was opposed to pretty much anything even vaguely resembling pleasure, he invented corn flakes as a food to be as bland and tasteless as possible. The only reason they ever became a popular breakfast cereal is because of his brother adding sugar to them despite Kelloggs objections
'cleanliness' and 'looking like their father' were later justifications after the practice had already gained traction.
About smell :
"In 2021, inhalation of hexadecanal was found to reduce aggression in men but to trigger aggression in women.[4] Hexadecanal is one of the most abundant substances emitted by human babies from their heads, which may be an evolutionary survival mechanism to induce mothers to defend the baby and fathers to not attack it. But it is not yet known whether the amount of hexadecanal emitted by humans is sufficient to affect other humans." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecanal
It would make sense. There are other behaviours that directly lower male aggression. Smiling and emotional tears.
Which is awesome for babies since non-human primate males are known to kill offspring of other males in order to get the mother in estrus sooner.
It's also the reason women smile when nervous and cry a lot more. I suppose you have to if you lack offense and defence. E.g. estrogens slowing muscular and skeletal growth in the upper body. And growing hair enough for thermal regulation, but not enough to redistribute blunt forces. The reason beards exist is to protect the jaw.
Interestingly, the main motive for men to commit homicide is dominance seeking behaviour. Men are more likely to kill every age with exception of infants. Women's main motives for homicide are self-defence first and jelousy second. Infanticide is almost exclusively done by women. Often their own too. Never trust a woman who had a miscarriage with your newborn or your pregnant wife. High prolactin, loss of child and stealing babies is not just a human thing.
I wonder how the willingness to kill your own (high risk and expensive) baby influenced human evolution. Since it's the other way around in other primates. Recon it reduced rape to be merely a dominance thing rather than a reproductive strategy?
Yes humans, as animals, have many wild internal forces. Horrible cases of abuse (babies, infants, women) were most certainly the result of these. Such horrible stories are then (sometimes // in part) keept (in folklore // culture) and help to warn us about these internal forces.
(sorry I know I don't have the exact words)
i believe it makes biological sense that if a women kills babies from rape, this, over many generation, would reduce rape. But again, this is something that is beyond my knowledge.
It does. We also evolved embryo wasting. A measurement to reduce non-viable pregnancies. Except it also tends to dispose of potentially healthy embryo's. They used to think 70% was wasted. But now they think it's between 40 and 60%.
This is a good thing, since it also enables more monogamous behaviour. More sex with the same guy = greater chance at conception. And reduces both male/male and female/female competition. So basically more coop-mode for everyone. Sucks only women suffer the drawbacks of this perk.
Not only that. Paternal care is something other primates lack. But men did develop paternal care as prolactin levels in the brain increase when men see their baby. Paternal care interestinly enough, isn't just a back-up parent in case the mom dies during labour. It's invaluable. Especially to boys who prefer to learn from their fathers.
On top of this, we also have meno- and andropause. Where people lose fertility. This is only seen in two other species. Both matriarchies where the leader is determined by her experience. Orca's and elephants. Sticking around while not competing with her own children is amazing. It's why we live so long. Fun fact. Male orcas only live 30 years, but female orcas live somewhere between 60 and 90 years. Makes that "women live 3 years longer than men on average" seem insignificant huh? In any case. Love your grandparents.
Anyhow. It's no surprise that forced mating is so common in nature, but not that common in humans. We are doing well despite rape still existing.
I think it's likely really surprising to learn/experience that feces of a breastfed baby (and to a lesser extent formula fed babies) don't smell like shit. It's natural to want to share a surprising learning. Might also be good to be forewarned the milky smell ends once normal food is introduced.
Having had four kids, if you are showing people pictures of any baby in the bath naked, they're gonna be upset no matter the gender. I don't think his is true at all.
You guys want to consider gender in vacuum but it is never a good idea.
Look at the sexualisation and brainwashing of the girls and patriarchy and men having this big power gap and sometimes using it in the most monstrous of the ways even today let alone 100 years ago. This is why the second image is big wtf while the first is small wtf.
That’s because in the first no one would immediately think that they sexualise the boy while in the second we arrive at this conclusion immediately and without hesitation thanks to all the hard work of men thorought history.
I know having this original sin of your fathers on your shoulders is not a cool feeling but this is the reality we are in.
The sooner this collective PTSD heals and that can only happen after some time of treating women as humans, the better for everyone. Problem is that point in history is far, far away considering the core issue is still prevalent.
It will take another 100 years of intense education and raising new generations to have the society that isn’t obviously fucked up and deeply hurt.
No one in the picture or the audience is sexualizing little girls (or boys). Instead, the outrage is caused by harmful expectations of purity that are imposed on girls and women, but not boys. As well as the current moral panic about pedophilia, which again is unhelpful in actuality protecting children.
Want to protect help children from predators? Help them remove the stigma around their bodies and sex, and empower them to speak and be heard when something they don’t like happens. Failing to do so reinforces the feelings of shame that all too often enable predators to get away with what they do.
And maybe also don’t share potentially embarrassing photos without consent but that’s small potatoes compared to the above issues.
Help them remove the stigma around their bodies and sex, and empower them to speak and be heard when something they don’t like happens.
This. So much this. If auntie wants to give them a kiss and they don't want to get slobbered then tough fucking luck auntie, I'll back the little shits up when they bite you. Predators are, by and large, able to do what they do because people don't teach kids that they do, in fact, have bodily autonomy.
And while I'm at it bodily autonomy of kids also implies that parents don't parade photos around like some fucking trophy or something. Have some basic fucking regard for your own kids and what they want. How would you feel when they're showing nude pictures of you to their classmates yeah I thought so.
I like this additional take with pure facts and discussion, It’s mostly uncharacteristically civil and starts to be interesting or at least has potential to be.
However I am mostly focused on why one picture is big wtf and why one is smaller wtf.
tl;dr "Misandry is perfectly fine because men are evil and nothing a woman has ever done is wrong."
The problem isn't that the bottom scenario isn't accepted, it's that the top scenario is. No one should be showing off nudes of children in public, or anywhere really, regardless of gender. It's weird, it's sick, and it has no place in this world.
Such a weird thing to say .. when I was little ('70s) it was not uncommon for kids to swim nude, we didn't care... Any adults who are ogling kids aren't going to stop just because of one layer of clothing.
If you're taking photos on a nude beach in Europe you're getting decked. Kid, adult, doesn't matter.
There's a massive fucking difference between sitting naked in a sauna with other naked people and sitting on public transit, fully dressed, gossiping about non-consensual nudes of children. How is that even a question. How are you capable of equating those things.
Except the comic doesn’t show them discussing or showing a naked body, it’s a weirdo pointing out the genitals to another person in a very public place. If it was toes, it’d be fine. If it was just a naked body it’d be whatever, mostly. But they’re specifically pointing out genitals, that implies sexual focus. It’s only “cute” and “funny” for the old women here because eventually it’ll be an organ used for sex…
Nah, it should never be acceptable to show photos of people naked to your friends without their express permission. Outside of medical professionals of course.
The hot tl;dr of this that is going to get you a lot of angry boys sending you incoherent diatribes is that we haven't decided as a species that we will stop sexualizing youth.
Yes there are biological imperatives for the sexually aggressive sex to seek out mates that are young, healthy and capable of producing offspring before they become too old to reproduce. That's all a thing that's real, but it's as far distant in our past as most other ancient instincts that we've put to rest. We just keep this one alive because we want it to continue broadly. The whole notion of older men predating and sexualizing youthful appearances or "innocence" as standards of femininity is absolutely something that if we all decided together was no longer acceptable, it would end tomorrow. (Or realistically in one generation.) This is not a more natural part of us than anything else we choose to follow or not, because we are well above using any natural response system as an excuse to allow dangerous social norms to continue.
The reason I say this is because there are a lot of men who will secretly or overtly hold the position that since we have biological urges, then it must be natural and acceptable. Meanwhile, ya'll fuckers completely ignore the thousand other biological drives and standards that we've abolished because they're unproductive, hurt people or just have gone out of style.
For example: body odor. Do you really think we were using soap and perfume when we were packed together in huts and caves for the last thousand millennia? You are genetically identical to the people who used to bury their faces in each other's armpits to identify each other in the dark, but the thought makes you gag now because you were socialized to feel repulsion at this. (Fetishes aside.) We can socialize ourselves to believe and internalize almost anything, we are far, far beyond the forces of natural selection and are now choosing our evolutionary path. Wouldn't it be nice if we chose good paths that respected others and protected children.
collective trauma refers to the impact of a traumatic experience that affects and involves entire groups of people, communities, or societies. Collective trauma is extraordinary in that not only can it bring distress and negative consequences to individuals but in that it can also change the entire fabric of a community (Erikson, 1976).
I appreciate your efforts but it is a real, scientifically proven phenomenon.
Sure, but PTSD is a specific disorder that individuals are diagnosed with. If a group of people are unable to work towards a single goal, saying they have "collective ADHD" is imprecise and potentially offensive to people with the diagnosis.
Trauma and ptsd can be used interchangeably. PTSD is more precise term and clinically significant. Trauma is more colloquial. I used PTSD on purpose to accent the debilitating effect it has on the society as a whole.
trauma and ptsd cannot be used interchangeably at all. PTSD is a specific mental condition documented in the DSM-5 and recognized by doctors that have multiple variations and nuances that must be taken into account. Trauma is an overarching term to describe experiences that have had a significant and profound impact on someone's mental state and health. I'm not usually a crazy stickler for word usage but this is just horribly imprecise language. You can have trauma without having PTSD. They are not the same thing and should not be treated as such.
Leiva-Bianchi, M., Nvo-Fernandez, M., Villacura-Herrera, C., Miño-Reyes, V., & Parra, N. (2023). What are the predictive variables that increase the risk of developing a complex trauma? A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 343, 153-165.
It’s rare in literature where there is a need for precision but common in practice
I was talking about collective trauma which OP was citing, though their initial term is collective PTSD.
Why would you use n-gram and not journal search engine like Google Scholar. There seems to be an engagement in the concept of collective PTSD since about 2007.
Is this an area of research or practice for you? It is not mine.
I think there's a couple of people around with collective OCD that just can't stand metaphor.
Jokes aside, and not being a sociologist, I do think it's a good distinction because PTSD implies a maladaptive reaction to trauma, and communities, just like individuals, can process their trauma well or they can mess it up.
Aydin, C. (2017). How to Forget the Unforgettable? On Collective Trauma, Cultural Identity, and Mnemotechnologies, Identity, 17:3, 125-137, DOI: 10.1080/15283488.2017.1340160
In fact, collective trauma can impact relationships, alter policies and governmental processes, alter the way the society functions, and even change its social norms (Chang, 2017; Hirschberger, 2018; Saul, 2014)
Maybe we should encourage suicides in boys starting in schools, would that work for you?
Edit: if you are going to down vote me the offer an idea the left will actually do. Otherwise I guess we are bringing up more republican rapists.
'50% of the world population would feel safer if you died' is the messaging the left offers so lean I to it or change the messaging
we arrive at this conclusion immediately and without hesitation thanks to all the hard work of men thorought history.
you say this like women have ever had rights to the point that being ogled at "would be bad" the one argument here would be the "daughter is her fathers property" and that's not really a gender thing, that's a social custom about gender more than anything.
It’s because men sexually assault women a lot. Like, an awful amount. Children, relatives, the whole thing: 1 out of 3 women have been sexually assaulted. That’s why it’s different.
As a male victim of TWO count 'em TWO sexual assaults perpetrated by TWO count em TWO different women, "fuck me, I don't matter."
You gonna bring up that I "obviously wanted it because I'm a man" next? Go ahead and block me for downvoting both that comment and yours, make my lemmy a better place.
Thanks for your important testimony. I have come to believe that your case in is an exception but I have no means of knowing this for sure and I apologize for being triggering.
My case isn't an exception, it happens more frequently then you'd like to believe and is seldom reported to another human much less law enforcement because men get laughed out of police stations and made fun of by friends. All the worse if the woman is conventionally attractive. In many localities the legal definition of rape is even phrased as "requiring penetration," meaning in many areas (most of the US and iirc all of the UK included, plus more) women can't get charged with rape they can only get charged with "sexual assault" at worst. There are many resources for woman victims but not one for male victims, males are not welcome in the women's groups. Most people you talk to about it just want to tell you some variation of "I pretend I care about male victims but here's why women are more important than you."
It happened years ago and I've learned to live with it now, I don't need pity. I need people to stop invalidating male victims, pretending they don't exist, pretending we don't matter due to volume, etc, to help the ones it happens to now. Fuck me I'm fine now, but whatever dude it happens to today somewhere out there in the world could use some help.
Because the overwheling majority of sexual assault convictions are of men. It's true.
OHHH because the women who sexually assaulted me didn't get convicted in a court of law, because I didn't report them, because nobody cares about male victims, we should use that to further invalidate the experiences of future male victims? My mistake, how silly of me.
I'm sorry to hear that happened to you. I do not think that the statistics of abuser demographics should be relevant to their prosecution. That is a different thing to the thing I was talking about.
It would seem you think that women should be presumed innocent and men presumed guilty based on the number of people in each respective demographic that have been convicted of sexual assault in a court of law, based upon this thread here.
I can agree with all that, I think it comes off as endorsement or defense when coupled with the words of the third parties above, if that was not your intention then my mistake.
No retraumitization here, just all too used to seeing people actually minimize male victim's experience which I tend to push back against, so maybe I was a touch jumpy lol. All good!
Of course, you're technically very right - what they see is not vagina.
But in the culture, the word often simply refers to female genitals as a whole.
That doesn't mean anyone using that word is not aware of the words "labia" and "vulva", they can even differentiate between labia majora and labia minora etc.
But for the sake of brevity and simplicity, people just say "vagina", even if it's not necessarily a technically correct term.
Situation also matters. This appears to be on a bus and between acquaintances. Do this same thing at home toward the adult child's significant other and it becomes a funny thing parents do to embarrass their kids.
Dark Arc is saying that it is generally considered a bad thing, contrary to the comic which is implying that it is generally considered good or neutral when it should be considered bad.
you guys missed the point. neither should be bad. it's only bad because of how we sexualize eveything. it's the sexualization that's bad, and honestly, that wouldn't even be that bad if it weren't for the patriarchal exploitation of sex.
Hmm, that's a good point, I was just clarifying what Dark Arc said as far as I can tell. You're right neither should be sexualized, but in the world we live in neither should be shared IMO.
Yeah, i mean in today's world, i value privacy too, but don't you wish you lived in a world where we were more in tune with the natural world and our natural selves?
I’m betting this same person you are arguing with is a vocal atheist who doesn’t realize religion is what imposed this shame upon our natural form, and probably that taboo contributes to the sexualization.
I haven’t been able to peg Lemmy down even after a year and this thread hasn’t helped. Lemmy is pro-freedom, acceptance, and FOSS, is literal to the point of absurdity, has a selectively activated superiority complex, and averages ~17 years old. Knowing all of that, I’m still endlessly befuddled. Any chance you’ve got the last puzzle piece?
There are many users over 30 but they are the minority. The clear absence of memory beyond what I’d personally describe as recent is pretty telling. I really have nothing tangible to back the assertion but it’s fairly apparent to me as a person of an age.
Stop sharing any photos of people who don't give consent, whether they can or not.
In an alternate timeline where we never had the stigma around nudity, I'd be just as embarrassed of my nose in a photo than I would of my penis.
Or maybe 10 years after I cut ties with you because you became a massive douche sandwich, I don't want my picture on the same Facebook wall as your white pride rally.
I think krippix’ point (as well as the comic’s point) is that the first is socially acceptable while the second is not. And that then suggests that the first scenario should also not be socially acceptable.
I don't think it really takes a side ... just kind of points out that it's super weird that it's more socially acceptable in one direction than the other.
I do hope the author intended for what I said to be the point though.
