Conference moira::parenting

    		I think that it's sad that you even have to worry about
    whether it is 'pornography' or not.  It's simply a picture that you
    snapped of your son while you were enjoying some time with him!  It
    certainly doesn't sound like there was any sexual intent here.  I
    wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it.
              My wife and I have taken video of our boys in the tub (Bobby
    is 2 1/2 and Ryan is 10 mos).  They're splashing away having a great
    time together.  Does that qualify us as porn film directors...!!??
    	      Geez, tell your co-worker to chill-out......
    
    
    				FWIW,
    
    				  Bob   

    
    
    Taking pictures of nude children and selling them IS pornography.
    
    An innocent picture of your son on a camping trip is HARMLESS.  If you
    ask 10 parents if they have a picture of their child(ren) naked, I bet
    at least 7 will say yes.  

    
    
    I too think it's sad...very sad.  
    
    I believe your intentions were to use this picture as a memory 
    of your vacation together.
    
    I hardly call a nakid child standing on a rock "pornography", 
    rubbish.
    
    I can't tell you how many pictures my mother has of my sister
    and brother and I nakid, be it on a rug or in the tub...
    
    Relax, you did nothing wrong!
    
    Kristin

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but IMHO having a cute
picture of your 2 year old buck-naked on a rock by a river is NOT
pornograpy.

Again, in my opinion, the definition of pornography includes 
sexually explicit poses or situations.  That, of course, is open
to interpretation.  Is a picture of your naked toddler sitting wide-legged
on the sand at the beach, playing with a beachball pornographic?  
Of course not.  Is that "Lever" soap commercial, where the Mommy, Daddy and
baby actors are all supposed to be nude or in bath towels ready to 
wash with a family soap, pornography?  No.  There was some famous judge
who said that he couldn't describe pornography, but knew it when he saw it.
I think that that applies here as well.  

     Bottom line (ah, no pun intended!) you didn't do anything wrong,
so don't feel guilty.  

	    - Lorri

    
    
    I do have a question....
    
    Is the co-worker who made the comment a parent?!
    
    Thanks...

    
    -1, Yes the co-worker is a parent.
    
    I think the point that I was trying to make here (because I agree that
    what I did was not harmful) was what society has us believing. 
    Although everyone here agrees that the picture was harmless, who is to
    to say that the people at CVS didn't agree and called in the police. 
    That is what worries me. 
    
    cj

    
    
    CJ,
    
    I would believe that the people who develop the film see this 
    stuff all the time.  And as one previous noter mention about the
    judge who couldn't describe it but knew it when he saw it, would
    be the same for the people developing the film.
    
    I agree with you that society does have us believing some pretty
    sick and scary things.  
    
    But I also believe that there are a lot more decent people out
    there than we think.
    
    Kristin

Is it "child pornography" legally?  Of course not.  The laws are reasonably
clear on what constitutes child pornography, and nude children in and of
themselves don't qualify.

Is it "child pornography" morally?  Of course not.

Could you get in trouble with an overzealous drug store photo developer?  Of
course.  We have all heard the horror stories; we know there are people out
there who don't know the difference between nudity and pornography; but if you
consider how sensational those "parent arrested for bathtub photos of baby
story" are, I'd say that running afoul of one of those clueless people is in the
same class as running afoul of a bear in the woods, or a drunk driver on the
highway.  You can't structure your life around avoiding natural disasters.

By the way, an earlier reply said "Taking pictures of nude children and selling
them IS pornography."  I wouldn't agree with that.  Whether the picture is for
your family album or for sale in a bookstore, the issue isn't nudity, it's sex. 
Photos of a child engaged in sexual activity, or posed or photographed in way
which exhibits a clear sexual intent, are child pornography.  Nudity, whether of
children or adults, is *not* prima facie evidence of sexual intent, thank
heavens!  (Caveat:  I believe that there may be a couple of states which *have*
criminalized nude photography of children per se, but they are still the
exception.)

	-Neil

    I think too, these stories (CVS), lose or gain in the telling and
    retelling.  Perhaps there were many pictures, or some of more than
    one child, etc...  I could be wrong, but I think the whole story is
    not there.  That is not to say CVS is justified, but to say - consider
    there may have been more than just one picture of one bare child.  
    
    But, I think your co-worker is wound just a little too *tight* :-)
    
    							cj *->

    Does anyone know just what happened to this person in Massachusetts?
    
    From what I was told, she was in college studying photography and it
    was her son.
    
    Thanks..
    
    cj

    It's funny you should enter this note today!  I brought in a
    picture today of my 1 year old daughter that I had done at a
    professional studio - she is naked, sitting in front of a big
    mirror with a feather boa draped across her shoulder.  She's
    pointing at herself in the mirror and smiling really big. It's
    a really adorable picture (I think!)  Everyone I showed it too
    has said it was great - except for one person.  This person 
    said she just couldn't understand why parents always feel the
    need to take pictures of their naked children.  She didn't call
    it pornography, but clearly thought the picture was anything
    but cute.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course.
    I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you did,
    and I also don't believe that I did anything wrong by hiring
    a professional photographer to take pictures of my naked
    daughter.  There is nothing sexual about it, and that is what
    pornography is (in my opinion!).  I've taken naked pictures of
    all of my kids at one time or another - I just think they're
    adorable!  Lila

>>    Does anyone know just what happened to this person in Massachusetts?

From what I remember, she was a photography student and took the pictures as
part of a project.  It was her son in the pictures.  She apparently became
hostile when told that the store did not wish to print those pictures.  The
police were called because she was creating a ruckus, not because of child
porn.  She refused all attempts to get her released, claiming she wanted to
make a statement, have her day in court, etc.  I vaguely recall that some of
the pictures were in questionable taste regardless of the nudity.  From what I
recall, this incident is not a particularly good test case regarding parents
taking nude pictures of their children.

						Brian

    Granted, the issue w/ CVS may have been exagerated but there is a
    deeper problem here.  It is society in general including Big Brother. 
    You can not live your life the way you choose without someone making
    some complaint against you.  What I mean is in addition to this string,
    take child abuse.  How many stories, TV shows etc. have you heard
    where a parent is reported to the police or some other group for
    something with their child.  Sure, there is a fine line here but I
    think the line is walked by way too many people who just can't keep
    their own nose where it belongs.  I in no way shape or form condone
    porno or child abuse but it does tick me off when people "over react"
    to something they have zero business in .  OK, I'll get off my soapbox
    now...
    
    jc
    

A recent newspaper article memtioned that a number of prisoners (paedophiles) 
collect and swap pictures of children, and pictures of children's underwear 
from magazines etc.  In some cases pornography appears to be the intent of the 
viewer rather than the actual item.

It's a scary world.

#Chele

    Count me in on a parent who has pictures of her children naked. 
    I think little kids, with their fat rolls and chubby cheeks are cute
    and that is the attraction.  You just don't get that same quality with
    their clothes on.
    
    Now, my daughter is 6 and if I am taking pictures of her, I usually do
    it from the waist up.  This is a self-censorship that just feels right
    to me.  She is starting to become modest and I think it is
    developmentally appropriate.
    
    I think people objecting to the photos are probably hung up on nudity
    in general.  
    
    judy

    cj,
    
    I don't find it to be pornographic, anymore than my pictures of Atlehi
    in an oversized flowerpot are evidence of child abuse.  
    
    Some people have odd reactions to anything that looks like a naked
    body.  I no longer send film to one lab in town, because of their
    reactions to the pictures I took at a gathering of the tribes.  (long
    story, but suffice it to say some of my pictures weren't printed, and
    the content wasn't sexual, except to a complete bluestocking)  This
    means they also lost all of our business for family photos, (we take
    lots and have a large extended family in town, as well as abroad, so we
    like to keep records to send off to japan, Germany and wherever)  their
    loss, but I almost have to wonder what they may do to someone with
    photographs of two-year-olds playing in a mud puddle)
    
    meg

    
    cj,
    
    	I also have a few pictures of my daughter, around the age of 2 or
    so, naked in the bath tub splashing away. Pornography?! Don't think so.
    It is a shame that society has come to such a point of fearfulness
    and distrust, thanks to the mass media and politicians. Assume guilty 
    unless proven innocent? I would think people involved in pornography
    have found ways to bypass this paranoia already, like developing the 
    film themselves. Don't know what CVS people think they are accomplishing. 
    
    
    Eva 
    

The first Boston Globe article on the woman in Cambridge is in BACK40::SOAPBOX
note 14.5364.  CVS had nothing to do with this or any other case I know of.
Keep in mind that retailers who "process film" actually send it out to photo
finishing companies like Konica.  The process in highly automated.  I suspect
that no human actually sees your photos until you open the envelope.

    My favorite picture of my son is when he was about 15 months old,
    standing next to the tub, his back to me, looking over his shoulder.
    His perfect little body with the baby fat makes for a perfect photo.
    
    I remember showing it to someone who made a snide comment about
    photographing nude children. I just ignored it. People are always
    looking something to say.  It was an insult.
    
    While this society needs to be on the alert for abuses at all times,
    this culture also is guilty for putting a sexual spin on everything.
    Advertisements can't be created without appealing to the sexual nature
    of things. It is pretty tiring.  Can't we as a culture look at a nude
    toddler without thinking sexual thoughts ? For that matter, shame on
    the person who made the remark. *SHE* was the one that brought sex
    into the discussion.
    
    So yes, the line is constantly being pushed... but mothers like us are 
    clearly defendable when it comes to these innocent photos. Would I take the 
    same photo of my son now, at 8 years old?  Of course not.

    Re: 0
    
    	I agree with your father. In this highly liberalist society we live
    in today it is difficult to raise children. It's no wonder we have a
    confused generation of Kids. We are on a Politically Correct Witch
    Hunt and personally I think this will result in a society of thin skinned
    individuals who can not deal with their own problems. It's an intrusion on
    the American Family. 
    
    

    One of my favorite pictures of my oldest is when she was about 2 1/2. 
    She got out of the bathtub and found some embroidered butterfly
    stickers before I got pajamas on her.  She put a line of them all the
    way down the middle of her chest, almost like a row of buttons.  
    
    My MIL complained about such a picture, but I think it's darling!
    
    Irene
    

I aggree that intent for the picture taking and viewing are what matter.

I also add the concept of whether my kids would want such a picture of them
when they're older.  I'm not horriby fond of the few my mom has, so I haven't
been taking any of my kids either...  ;-)

Charlie

>        I agree with your father. In this highly liberalist society we live
>    in today it is difficult to raise children. It's no wonder we have a
>    confused generation of Kids. We are on a Politically Correct Witch
>    Hunt and personally I think this will result in a society of thin skinned
>    individuals who can not deal with their own problems. It's an intrusion on
>    the American Family. 

Political Correctness has nothing to do with liberalism, or conservatism ...

This has nothing to do with political correctness ...

It is soleley to do with an interpretation on moral values and a desire to
press minority moral values on the majority.

Where do the drives for political correctness and these so called family or
moral values come from ... reactionary responses to perceived injustices.
Some are valid, and some are not, but instead of permitting common sense to
prevail on an as required basis, we invent laws (political or social) in an
attempt to not have to deal with the issues.

No ... a picture of a nude child in and of itself is not pornographic.

Stuart

    Re: .most
    
    I agree with you, but I must tell a story, you can come to your own
    conclusions.  I once knew of a fellow who worked at a photo developing
    place.  He noted certain pics that he liked.  He made himself blow ups
    of the pics he liked.  He had pictures plastered all over his room.
    In this case it was of 'pretty ladies', and he had no pornographic
    intents.  Yet, he could not understand why I thought this was wrong.
    So when you take your pictures, how private do you believe they are?
    Such instances are probably very rare, but I assure you, do happen.
    I personally cant wait for good/cheap electronic cameras: no developing.
    
    Re: 23
    
    ..It is soleley to do with an interpretation on moral values and a desire
    ..to press minority moral values on the majority.
    
    You are listening to liberal/conservative banter too much.  What this
    has to do with, is the courts (desirable) inability to convict people doing
    things that the MAJORITY think is HARMFUL (forget immoral) to the innocent.
    Unfortunately without laws that prevent certain specific activities, it is
    impossible to prosecute the real criminals.  So lawmakers unfortunately
    believe (somewhat correctly, given the legal system) that they have to
    pass generic laws (to prevent loophole abuse) and then not prosecute those
    that obviously are not doing wrong things.  Without the law, they could not
    prosecute those actually doing pornography. Its kindof hard to make a law
    that says its illegal to do something (as noted in previous replies) if
    someone 'knows criminal activity x when s/he sees it.'  Its an incredibly
    imperfect system we live under, and this is wroght with injustice, and
    opportunities for abuse, but may be the best we are going to get.  Again,
    this wierd set of laws we live under is usually to protect the innocent
    majority (supported by the majority) from the actions of the (immoral, but
    more importantly HARMFUL) few (in this case doing real child pornography.)
    Also, to respond to this majority/minority morals idea: without the
    over-defense of the harmful actions of the few, we wouldnt have these wierd
    laws. Finally, if you dont believe this, talk to some cops or lawmakers
    about their frustrations in these areas.
    
    Nothing personal, but lets look at problems before we sweep them under
    some tired label.
    
    - Jim

    RE .23
    
    	I don't want to go down a rathole. But when parents can not decide
    on an issue for themselves. Whatever it may be discipline, picture taking,
    or whatever. Without being worried about offending someone or legal
    action being taken against them because of a society that feels the
    parent is not capable of making that decision. I'm sorry but I have to
    say that  Politically Correctness and Liberalism has a direct bearing
    on how the majority of us lead our lives today. This is just one of
    many intrusions on our personal freedoms being perpetrated against
    us by an Administration which is Politically Correct. I'm all for
    Children's Rights but I also think society as a whole needs to keep
    things in perspective.   
                           

> I don't want to go down a rathole. But when parents can not decide
> on an issue for themselves. Whatever it may be discipline, picture taking,
> or whatever. Without being worried about offending someone or legal
> action being taken against them because of a society that feels the
> parent is not capable of making that decision.

  Do you feel the same way about my rights to access whatever I want
  on the Internet, or at the local video store? Do you feel the same
  way about a child's right to access information about sexuality
  and contraception? Do you feel the same way about a woman's right
  to obtain reproductive services including abortion?

  Are all of us allowed to decide for ourselves in those circumstances too?

                                     Atlant

There was a report on TV yesterday about a man who takes pictures of
cheerleaders and sells them.  The cheerleaders are wearing their normal
cheerleader uniforms, doing normal cheerleader activities, and are not aware
they are being photographed.  The pictures are sold to people who derive sexual
pleasure from them.

The activities are innocent, the framing of the pictures may be slightly
suggestive, but the intent of the viewers is clearly pornographic.  In this
case, the intent of the photographer is apparently pornographic as well, but
that's not always the case; consider, for example, underwear ads, which also
give sexual pleasure to some people.

My point is that it isn't always clear from looking at the photograph what the
intentions of the photographer were, and it isn't at all clear how to draw the
line.  The extremes are easy, it's the stuff in the middle that's really tough,
and many lawyers make their money in fuzzy regions.

Re: .25

Please, please, don't go down that road.  There are those of us who consider
liberalism a good thing, who support the concept of political correctness, and
who are nonetheless on the same side as you in supporting the parent in this
issue.  Imposing one's moral standards on others is something that many people
do, regardless of their political bent.  I could just as easily imagine a
conservative outcry against nude pictures of children as a liberal one;
certainly, there have been conservative outcries against nude pictures of
adults.  So please, don't generalize this into a liberal/conservative/PC
debate.

						Brian

    
    >Are all of us allowed to decide for ourselves in those circumstances too?
    
    Yes! And individually bear all the responsibility that goes with said decision.
    
    

I think the age of the child has a lot to do with this, too.  Most people
who have said that they have nude pictures of their kids have stated that
the age of the kids was around 2 1/2 or younger.  I know I would see it
differently if the child were considerably older, and depending on how the
child felt about it.

      Carol

I have 3 boys, and pictures of all of them, naked.  Not planned or any such 
thing - but as Carla had - spur of the moment, "Oh, isn't that cute!".

I personally, do feel that the sale of those pictures crosses the line, and 
would (at least in my mind) begin on the road to pornography.  I see nothing 
at all wrong with our family having these pics (and I mean the immediate 
family - not aunts/cousins etc), but I would be nervous to think that they've 
made it OUTside the family, and someone who didn't know him, would be gazing 
at my naked son ... it would make me uncomfortable.  I'm sure that none of 
them were over the age of 3 - mostly little little tykes - probably 1 or 
under.

It's something you see anyway - your kids buzzing around the house naked - I 
think there's nothing wrong with remembering that.  But you wouldn't let 
someone pay you to watch your kids running around naked - I think selling (or 
passing out) the pictures crosses the line.  I don't know how comfortable I'd 
feel showing them around work -- you can never tell about people ....

Maybe if you took a shot without his face or something more "sexually 
oriented" ... but I think it's pretty harmless.  

Besides ... you need those photos to keep 'em in line as a teenager! (-:
(you better be good or I'll show your boy/girl friend that bathtub pic!).

Relax .... 

    CJ, I jusy found your entry about the picture. It hit a small nerve as
    I have an adorable picture of my 3 yr old son and his best friend in
    the tub. Nothing can be seen from the waist down, but some of the
    horrified reactions of some folks, when they saw the pictures of 2
    innocent little boys, made me scared and also very defensive.
    Several poeple were aghast that I would let 2 little boys bathe
    together. How would they react if I told them that once in a while I bring 
    my son in the shower with me to save time?!! My Gosh, he's only 3....
    
    When he was only a few months old, I took a picture of my little angel
    on the changing table. He was lying on his tummy. My inlaws all wanted 
    copies, my own mother was disgusted. What's so terrible about the 
    beautiful, soft and angelic form of a naked baby.
    It's only sexual if you look at it that way. I believe that most people
    see just what;'s there, innocence, a captured moment of carefree childhood.
    
    The US has the most twisted, prudish view of things. I remember one time in
    Mexico I saw atleast a dozen nake children dancing around under a fountain.
    They were shreaking and prancing with utter delight. It was the one time I
    didn't have ny camera, or I would have taken a shot. Now amd I a pornog-
    rapher?
    
    - Sarah

    I have lots of pictures of Joe (now 8) as a naked baby or toddler. 
    They are mine, my husbands, and my mom's (she lives with us).  They are
    not pictures I have ever taken to work or sent to the relatives, just
    because of situations like the this.  What is one person's innocent
    snap of a cute look is another person's disgusting thought.  I don't
    choose to offend other people, so I keep those photos to myself.  Of
    course, someone whois offended by the sigh t of two small boys in a
    bathtub or a baby on a bear rug or a toddler on a rock probably has (a)
    more rigid moral or religious strictures than the photographer(s) and
    (b) a tendency to over-react.
    
    IMHO, nothing more or less.  My 8 y ear old is quite the little
    exhibitionist when in the privacy of his own home, but very modest with
    other children and adults.  I see no harm in allowing Joe to skinny dip
    in our backyard pool, for example, as long as (a) there are no other
    kids visiting, and (b) whoever else (mom, dad, baby) is swimming with
    him is NOT skinny dipping and (c) all the houses behind ours remain one
    story!!
    
    Regards,
    
    M.