You're viewing part of a thread.
i didn’t take them and i didn’t consent to them existing either. Neither did i consent to them being shown to anybody.
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.
You can have your naked baby photos, you just also have to be in the photo and naked as well.
I'm not embarrassed by my body and if that's what her partner really wants to see, I don't care.
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.
This is actually solid advice, especially as far as social media is concerned.
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.
You're (wisely) backpeddling now but you said:
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.
You show me an example of anyone suffering PTSD because their parents showed their partner baby pictures.
Ah yes, because everything is ethical as long as the other party doesn't develop a mental illness because of it
The claim was it caused trauma. That is something that is evidence-based. You are changing the subject.
I'm sorry, you can't have experienced trauma unless you've had someone clinically analyze and diagnose you?
What kind of absurd bar is this?
Can't? No. Has? Let's see some evidence.
You can claim that seeing people in red hats causes trauma. Without evidence, it's just a claim.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Has it caused someones trauma? Yeah I bet it has.
Cool. Psychology isn't based on your bets.
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.
Psychology isn't based on your bets.
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?
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.
i literally didn't claim that, scroll up to one of my previous comments.
i quite literally said that i would consider it a violation of privacy,
That is what you said.
What you would consider it is irrelevant to what people who have experienced it have considered it.
violation of privacy is often considered to be an extreme form of trauma for most.
That's why it's private.
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.
You wouldn’t expose your child naked in public,
How exactly do you think someone changes a diaper at a park?
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.
So you acknowledge that I would, in fact, expose my child naked in public. And with good reason. And everyone could see her genitalia when I did.
Edit: Oh, sorry, misread. You think you can always make it to a bathroom? You have never had a baby.
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.
It's rude to change a baby's diaper in public?
Is it rude to breast feed in public as well?
You have not ever had a baby if you think you can get to a bathroom or a car every time before an emergency happens.
And you not knowing what it's like to take care of a baby explains a lot.
It’s rude to change a baby’s diaper in public?
considering you haven't defined public, and don't seem like you want to define public, yeah i'm going to say that's probably rude.
considering you haven’t defined public, and don’t seem like you want to define public, yeah i’m going to say that’s probably rude.
Why are you lying?
I literally wrote this:
How exactly do you think someone changes a diaper at a park?
Not all parks have restrooms. Not all parks with restrooms have working restrooms. Not everyone drives their car everywhere.
I suppose next you'll tell me that people should only take their babies to parks that have working and open restrooms or drive to a park.
park is an incredibly broad definition. Are we talking a national park? Fucking yellowstone? A childrens playground? A public park? A parking lot? All of these are very different from each other, and some of these would make more sense than others.
in fact, going by the most broad definition "An area of land set aside for public use, as." this includes places like the DMV, or local government buildings, and my personal favorite. Memorial sites.
you have got to give me something to work with here if you're going to sit there and call me stupid.
Why does it matter what kind of park if it doesn't have a restroom and I didn't drive? Is a national park without a restroom different from a city park without a restroom if I didn't drive to it? I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
First you say I should have used a restroom or my car. Then when I explained to you that isn't always possible suddenly it matters if it's a national park or a city park? What?