Fair comment. But at what point is there a cut-off?
If you had a child and had taken a couple of photos of them as a baby and toddler, them in the bath say, or naked on a rug, or being breastfed. Is that wrong? Probably not. Is your intent to embarrass or sexualise them. No.
But if when that child has grown into a teenager or adult, they tell you that they find those photos offensive and want them destroyed, what do you do? To you they aren't offensive, they are wonderful snippets of a child's life. Should you have assumed that they wouldn't like them in later life and so never have taken them in the first place?
And it can extend to the kids in the cute lion outfits, underwear catalogues, etc. How much are you going to censor what you think is cute or wonderful, on the off chance that maybe your child will hate it in later life? Especially if they aren't bothered by it at the time? "No, I'm not taking a picture of you in that super-hero outfit, because when you are 14 you will hate that shot."
The cover of Nevermind, I think, is one of the iconic images of the twentieth century. Spencer Elden, the original baby, posed in bathers for a retake when he was 11. This year at 17 he announced that he felt like a porn star and it was kind of creepy many people had seen him naked. Who's to say how he'll feel in another seven years, or twenty?
As parents we can only do what we think is right for our kids, and we're going to get it wrong a chunk of the time. For the parents of Klara and Edda, they may be proud of their children, think that the photo is great art, that it captures a moment innocent play.
And if that's the attitude they instil into those children in regards to that shot, there's a chance that the kids will feel that way too.
The fact I think it's bloody ordinary doesn't matter.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-08 03:55 am (UTC)If you had a child and had taken a couple of photos of them as a baby and toddler, them in the bath say, or naked on a rug, or being breastfed. Is that wrong? Probably not. Is your intent to embarrass or sexualise them. No.
But if when that child has grown into a teenager or adult, they tell you that they find those photos offensive and want them destroyed, what do you do? To you they aren't offensive, they are wonderful snippets of a child's life. Should you have assumed that they wouldn't like them in later life and so never have taken them in the first place?
And it can extend to the kids in the cute lion outfits, underwear catalogues, etc. How much are you going to censor what you think is cute or wonderful, on the off chance that maybe your child will hate it in later life? Especially if they aren't bothered by it at the time? "No, I'm not taking a picture of you in that super-hero outfit, because when you are 14 you will hate that shot."
The cover of Nevermind, I think, is one of the iconic images of the twentieth century. Spencer Elden, the original baby, posed in bathers for a retake when he was 11. This year at 17 he announced that he felt like a porn star and it was kind of creepy many people had seen him naked. Who's to say how he'll feel in another seven years, or twenty?
As parents we can only do what we think is right for our kids, and we're going to get it wrong a chunk of the time. For the parents of Klara and Edda, they may be proud of their children, think that the photo is great art, that it captures a moment innocent play.
And if that's the attitude they instil into those children in regards to that shot, there's a chance that the kids will feel that way too.
The fact I think it's bloody ordinary doesn't matter.