5 ms·

I have weirdly mixed feelings on your comment. - I agree that parents who publicize their children on social media are massive creep in my opinion, who do a ma

I have weirdly mixed feelings on your comment. - I agree that parents who publicize their children on social media are massive creep in my opinion, who do a massive invasion of the child privacy. That should almost be illegal in my opinion since the child can't consent. - At the same time saying that no skin should ever be shown ever because "it titills sexual creeps" is a dark road that points in a direction which in some places ends up at covering the faces of women for the exact same reason. Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ? On the other hand in many places of Northern europe nudity is more common even in public. That works because they don't culturally associate as much nudity with sex as americans or other parts of the world do.. (You'd obviously get beaten up for masturbating in these places especially with children around.). And that doesn't seem like so bad a thing to me

isitmadeofglass 4y ago
[dead]
valarauko 4y ago
> That should almost be illegal in my opinion since the child can't consent. Genuine Q: at what point can the child consent? A lot of people here are talking about a media blackout of their children since the child can't consent, but when does that end? Can a 5-year-old consent to have their pictures posted online? 10? 15?
- blooalien 4y ago
  I've known 5 year olds who understood the world well enough to make such decisions about their own lives (and surprisingly enough make wise decisions about such things, and able to explain why they feel their choice is valid) but in my experience, that's always been due to good parenting giving the child early access to important "brain functionality" (logic, reason, slowing down and taking time to think before taking action and not just "freaking out" and jumping into a situation wildly, etc.) and those simply aren't skills a lotta parents teach these days (for wildly varying reasons I'm sure). Children like that are a ridiculously rare breed anymore. It'd be nice if the decision about such things depended upon the child being capable of such decisions, but how would one even determine let alone verify that a child's decision making skills were appropriate for that type of choice? Only truly caring parents, other adults who spend a lot of time around the family, and the child themselves could be really truly "in the know" about it…
  - valarauko 4y ago
    My discomfort arises from centering this on the idea of a child's consent. While I admit your point makes sense, it also feels like a slippery slope - "No Chris Hansen, she was one of those rare breeds of 15-year-olds who is capable of giving consent..." As a society we have settled on the idea that regardless of the emotional development of a minor, they are materially incapable of granting consent since we believe they do not yet the maturity to comprehend it. I know this is a terrible analogy, but alas, this is where I feel the slippery slope leads by centering this debate on the idea of consent. Yes, there is a material difference in the kinds of consent we're dealing with, but I'm not sure if they're all that different.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  The real question is not "when can the child consent" (depends on the child, hard to even define) but "where put the legal age for best reasonable protection of the children". I'd be fine with "no minor on social media" < 16.
  - valarauko 4y ago
    > I'd be fine with "no minor on social media" < 16. I think is pretty broad, but do you suggest no depictions of under 16s on any online media? It's one thing to restrict minors from participating on social media, but are you suggesting their likeness cannot appear online posted by other people? Parents? School yearbook? School social club?
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
TBH I agree with you that we shouldn't forbid children from wearing standard amounts of clothing (i.e. not much) to go swimming due to creeps existing generally in the world. I'm talking about intentionally filming one's own children for the viewership of creeps online for perpetual consumption in order to make a profit. This would be akin to making one's living by nonconsensually filming nude beach visitors in northern europe for 8 hrs+/day and uploading that online vs someone just visiting a nude beach.
eloisant 4y ago
Going to the pool and posting online are 2 different things. I would be happy with a law forbidding to post public pictures of your underage kids, regardless of skin exposure.
- sramam 4y ago
  Personally, I agree with your view-point. However, the law you are proposing would prohibit a parent from posting an image of their child winning the spelling bee, in a full suit. I have no idea how to thread this needle, outside making my personal choices.
- nradov 4y ago
  I'm not sure where to draw the line in order to protect children, but a blanket ban on posting pictures of them would never survive a First Amendment challenge. US Supreme Court precedents have made it clear that any restrictions must be more narrowly targeted.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  This reminds me of https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Milford_School https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Milford_School > Children should be neither seen nor heard. Surely, kids can be seen in movies, tv shows, news articles about kids competitions or events, etc?
germinalphrase 4y ago
You’re underselling the social and financial dynamic of specifically recording children in minimal clothing and asking them to perform for anonymous strangers on the internet. It’s entirely different than standard social standards about clothing and nudity in public.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Precisely. A prominent example; it's quite the read: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-18/piper-rockelle-youtube-child-labor-lawsuit https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-18/... > But it is the suit filed by 11 former members of the Squad that has placed the Piper Rockelle saga at the center of an explosive online controversy. The plaintiffs, all of whom are minors, allege in the lawsuit that Smith offered to show an 11-year-old girl how to perform oral sex, mailed Piper’s underwear to men and pretended to be a raunchy version of the family’s dead cat while inappropriately touching and harassing the children. > Trimmer, a photographer, said Smith often urged the kids to pose more provocatively for thumbnail photo shoots — the images used to promote YouTube videos. She would frequently tell the Squad members to make ‘sexy kissing faces’ for thumbnails, to ‘push their butts out,’ to ‘suck their stomachs in,’ ‘wear something sluttier’ and would otherwise position Plaintiffs’ bodies in explicitly and sexually suggestive positions,” the complaint said. > Numerous Squad members also allege that Smith regularly interacted online with a man posing as a young girl named “Megan” who sent her money, a Gucci bag, laptops, lawn furniture and other expensive gifts in exchange for images of Piper. In the lawsuit, Corinne said she witnessed Smith mail “several of Piper’s soiled training bras and panties to an unknown individual,” adding that Smith told her “old men like to smell this stuff.” They know who the audience is.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  We don't disagree, I was just not EVEN speaking about that. This is miles away more horrific.
PurpleRamen 4y ago
> Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ? It's significant easier to hone your creepiness when you have an endless supply of training-material. It might even help you to discover this side of you in the first place. > On the other hand in many places of Northern europe nudity is more common even in public. Not with children. Even in Europe parents are generally quite protective with them. And here the topic of family-influencer and sexualization of their children is also a hot topic.
- klyrs 4y ago
  In the late 90s I was startled by a billboard in Germany which featured a dozenish naked boys, standing shoulder to shoulder and bearing all for the camera. It was an ad for a telecom, if I recall. Some of them had pubic hair, some were too young for that. Reading up on the legality of public nudity in Germany, I wonder if this would still fly today.
- watwut 4y ago
  I have seen naked toddlers in European swimming pools/lakes.
  - PurpleRamen 4y ago
    Toddlers are infants, not children. There is different awareness according to their abilities and demands.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      In the US, toddlers are toddlers, infants are infants. Both toddlers and infants are children. https://www.verywellfamily.com/difference-between-baby-newborn-infant-toddler-293848 https://www.verywellfamily.com/difference-between-baby-newbo...
golergka 4y ago
Should we make Nirvana's Nevermind cover illegal?
- _trampeltier 4y ago
  Today it would be impossible. But also much other things in media. Like the first James Bond Casino Royale (1967). There is a scene in a tube with Bond and a younger than 18 years old girl in a tube. Or a in the movie Kickboxer (1988) with Van Damme. There is a scene when they are on a boat on a river in Thailand. You can see at least one young boy complete nude from frontside. Another scene later in the hospital. The brother just grop the butt from the nurse and everybody is laughing. To watch it today feels very strange.
- stametseater 4y ago
  Was there ever a pressing need for that cover to exist in the first place? I don't think our society would be culturally impoverished if they had simply taken a picture of something else.
  - golergka 4y ago
    There's no "pressing need" for any art at all, or many other wonderful things that make our lives better. It's a very shitty criteria to determine whether something should be banned or not.
    - peterashford 4y ago
      That's much broader than the argument that I think is being made - or should be made. Which is that the need for an album cover art doesn't justify making public images of a nude child who clearly cannot consent to such.
    - stametseater 4y ago
      I find it hard to believe anybody could describe that cover as a "wonderful thing" that "made their life better." If it's really art for the sake of art, art justifying itself, then let it be done for free. I want the monetization of such things banned, because I don't think this is art for the sake of art. I think child modelling is done for the sake of commercial exploitation.
prepend 4y ago
> Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ? I don’t suggest that, but I think it’s pretty bad to post lots of swimsuit pics to social media. And it’s absolutely horrible to accept money in exchange for 1:1 videos or commissioned photos for internet strangers. There’s no legitimate purposes for adults to ask little kids to pose on swimsuits for them. I’m not sure if it should be illegal, but certainly scorned and people who practice to have appropriate levels of opprobrium.

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

[dead]

valarauko 4y ago

> That should almost be illegal in my opinion since the child can't consent. Genuine Q: at what point can the child consent? A lot of people here are talking about a media blackout of their children since the child can't consent, but when does that end? Can a 5-year-old consent to have their pictures posted online? 10? 15?

blooalien 4y ago
I've known 5 year olds who understood the world well enough to make such decisions about their own lives (and surprisingly enough make wise decisions about such things, and able to explain why they feel their choice is valid) but in my experience, that's always been due to good parenting giving the child early access to important "brain functionality" (logic, reason, slowing down and taking time to think before taking action and not just "freaking out" and jumping into a situation wildly, etc.) and those simply aren't skills a lotta parents teach these days (for wildly varying reasons I'm sure). Children like that are a ridiculously rare breed anymore. It'd be nice if the decision about such things depended upon the child being capable of such decisions, but how would one even determine let alone verify that a child's decision making skills were appropriate for that type of choice? Only truly caring parents, other adults who spend a lot of time around the family, and the child themselves could be really truly "in the know" about it…
- valarauko 4y ago
  My discomfort arises from centering this on the idea of a child's consent. While I admit your point makes sense, it also feels like a slippery slope - "No Chris Hansen, she was one of those rare breeds of 15-year-olds who is capable of giving consent..." As a society we have settled on the idea that regardless of the emotional development of a minor, they are materially incapable of granting consent since we believe they do not yet the maturity to comprehend it. I know this is a terrible analogy, but alas, this is where I feel the slippery slope leads by centering this debate on the idea of consent. Yes, there is a material difference in the kinds of consent we're dealing with, but I'm not sure if they're all that different.
davidguetta 4y ago
The real question is not "when can the child consent" (depends on the child, hard to even define) but "where put the legal age for best reasonable protection of the children". I'd be fine with "no minor on social media" < 16.
- valarauko 4y ago
  > I'd be fine with "no minor on social media" < 16. I think is pretty broad, but do you suggest no depictions of under 16s on any online media? It's one thing to restrict minors from participating on social media, but are you suggesting their likeness cannot appear online posted by other people? Parents? School yearbook? School social club?

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

TBH I agree with you that we shouldn't forbid children from wearing standard amounts of clothing (i.e. not much) to go swimming due to creeps existing generally in the world. I'm talking about intentionally filming one's own children for the viewership of creeps online for perpetual consumption in order to make a profit. This would be akin to making one's living by nonconsensually filming nude beach visitors in northern europe for 8 hrs+/day and uploading that online vs someone just visiting a nude beach.

eloisant 4y ago

Going to the pool and posting online are 2 different things. I would be happy with a law forbidding to post public pictures of your underage kids, regardless of skin exposure.

sramam 4y ago
Personally, I agree with your view-point. However, the law you are proposing would prohibit a parent from posting an image of their child winning the spelling bee, in a full suit. I have no idea how to thread this needle, outside making my personal choices.
nradov 4y ago
I'm not sure where to draw the line in order to protect children, but a blanket ban on posting pictures of them would never survive a First Amendment challenge. US Supreme Court precedents have made it clear that any restrictions must be more narrowly targeted.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
This reminds me of https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Milford_School https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Milford_School > Children should be neither seen nor heard. Surely, kids can be seen in movies, tv shows, news articles about kids competitions or events, etc?

germinalphrase 4y ago

You’re underselling the social and financial dynamic of specifically recording children in minimal clothing and asking them to perform for anonymous strangers on the internet. It’s entirely different than standard social standards about clothing and nudity in public.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Precisely. A prominent example; it's quite the read: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-18/piper-rockelle-youtube-child-labor-lawsuit https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-12-18/... > But it is the suit filed by 11 former members of the Squad that has placed the Piper Rockelle saga at the center of an explosive online controversy. The plaintiffs, all of whom are minors, allege in the lawsuit that Smith offered to show an 11-year-old girl how to perform oral sex, mailed Piper’s underwear to men and pretended to be a raunchy version of the family’s dead cat while inappropriately touching and harassing the children. > Trimmer, a photographer, said Smith often urged the kids to pose more provocatively for thumbnail photo shoots — the images used to promote YouTube videos. She would frequently tell the Squad members to make ‘sexy kissing faces’ for thumbnails, to ‘push their butts out,’ to ‘suck their stomachs in,’ ‘wear something sluttier’ and would otherwise position Plaintiffs’ bodies in explicitly and sexually suggestive positions,” the complaint said. > Numerous Squad members also allege that Smith regularly interacted online with a man posing as a young girl named “Megan” who sent her money, a Gucci bag, laptops, lawn furniture and other expensive gifts in exchange for images of Piper. In the lawsuit, Corinne said she witnessed Smith mail “several of Piper’s soiled training bras and panties to an unknown individual,” adding that Smith told her “old men like to smell this stuff.” They know who the audience is.
davidguetta 4y ago
We don't disagree, I was just not EVEN speaking about that. This is miles away more horrific.

PurpleRamen 4y ago

> Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ? It's significant easier to hone your creepiness when you have an endless supply of training-material. It might even help you to discover this side of you in the first place. > On the other hand in many places of Northern europe nudity is more common even in public. Not with children. Even in Europe parents are generally quite protective with them. And here the topic of family-influencer and sexualization of their children is also a hot topic.

klyrs 4y ago
In the late 90s I was startled by a billboard in Germany which featured a dozenish naked boys, standing shoulder to shoulder and bearing all for the camera. It was an ad for a telecom, if I recall. Some of them had pubic hair, some were too young for that. Reading up on the legality of public nudity in Germany, I wonder if this would still fly today.
watwut 4y ago
I have seen naked toddlers in European swimming pools/lakes.
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  Toddlers are infants, not children. There is different awareness according to their abilities and demands.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    In the US, toddlers are toddlers, infants are infants. Both toddlers and infants are children. https://www.verywellfamily.com/difference-between-baby-newborn-infant-toddler-293848 https://www.verywellfamily.com/difference-between-baby-newbo...

golergka 4y ago

Should we make Nirvana's Nevermind cover illegal?

_trampeltier 4y ago
Today it would be impossible. But also much other things in media. Like the first James Bond Casino Royale (1967). There is a scene in a tube with Bond and a younger than 18 years old girl in a tube. Or a in the movie Kickboxer (1988) with Van Damme. There is a scene when they are on a boat on a river in Thailand. You can see at least one young boy complete nude from frontside. Another scene later in the hospital. The brother just grop the butt from the nurse and everybody is laughing. To watch it today feels very strange.
stametseater 4y ago
Was there ever a pressing need for that cover to exist in the first place? I don't think our society would be culturally impoverished if they had simply taken a picture of something else.
- golergka 4y ago
  There's no "pressing need" for any art at all, or many other wonderful things that make our lives better. It's a very shitty criteria to determine whether something should be banned or not.
  - peterashford 4y ago
    That's much broader than the argument that I think is being made - or should be made. Which is that the need for an album cover art doesn't justify making public images of a nude child who clearly cannot consent to such.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    I find it hard to believe anybody could describe that cover as a "wonderful thing" that "made their life better." If it's really art for the sake of art, art justifying itself, then let it be done for free. I want the monetization of such things banned, because I don't think this is art for the sake of art. I think child modelling is done for the sake of commercial exploitation.

prepend 4y ago

> Should we forbid children to go to the pool because sexual creeps might go there ? I don’t suggest that, but I think it’s pretty bad to post lots of swimsuit pics to social media. And it’s absolutely horrible to accept money in exchange for 1:1 videos or commissioned photos for internet strangers. There’s no legitimate purposes for adults to ask little kids to pose on swimsuits for them. I’m not sure if it should be illegal, but certainly scorned and people who practice to have appropriate levels of opprobrium.