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.
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.
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?
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.
Taking photos of naked children isn't, and shouldn't, be normal in any culture I'm familiar with, and you definitely shouldn't be showing them to anyone.
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?
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 resorting 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