Jump to content
IGNORED

Nie posts pic of daughter's genitals


Beeks

Recommended Posts

Also, the picture is completely unnecessary. So you changed the kid in the back of the van, big whoop. Who hasn't changed a child in a car? Nobody is going to shout. "Pics or it didn't happen!" Or, here's a novel idea, take the picture from the opposite side and get her top half and not the bottom. Or put a little icon over her private area. That's the problem with a lot of these mommy bloggers, the kids aren't treated as individual human beings. They're just pawns in the on going "mommy story" to get more readers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Their daughter is sure going to love the fact her mother posted a photo of her baby self naked from the waist down on the internet when she's old enough to find out. Do some people not realise that some things just don't need to be photographed/published on the internet? I understand everyone has an embarassing baby photo or two, but with social media and the internet in general, people seem to forget that it's hard to erase a trace of something on it for good. It might be 'cute' to the mother right now, but that child has a right to privacy, whether she is a baby or she's 30 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, 4 pages fuss about nothing. Just a bad picture.

Uh NO. I just sent the link to that picture to a lawyer friend of mine and he proceeded to bitch me out for not telling him it was POSSIBLY ILLEGAL prior to him clicking on it. He's positively horrified. He's also asking me, "Why? Why is this picture here?"

So no, it's not just a bad picture. It's a BAD picture.

ETA: Way more blatant than the keyword harvesting McKMama has been alleged to do in the past.

ETA 2: Apparently her only concession to the complaints is not to put up the full picture (which was there yesterday) but to swap it out for a 600x800-ish snap. NO NIE, NO. Not Good Enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotten to the same point with nienie that i've gotten to with mckmama (actually, it happened with nienie way before mckmama, but here we are...)

I can't read either of them anymore without getting up in arms. I'm LOOKING for something to be pissed off about, with them, because i just find them to be generally annoying (and in some cases reprehensible) humans.

At first, in nienie's case, i "felt bad" for her. her pictures were pretty, her pre-accident self was BEAUTIFUL. I mean, like her or not, she was beautiful.

and now, she's...not. But she's making a life for herself.

That was a long time ago. Now i think she's just a generally not really very smart or very good person. I have VERY little respect for ANY blogger of note to not allow for any comments or criticism.

But back to my original thing...while I admit that I really am looking for reasons to be pissed off when I *DO* read nie or mck, i still find this to cross the line.

Whether or not the pedophile who finds this picture actually ever is a physical threat to your kid...it's still...UGH! It's still too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I don't care if somebody gets turned on by my car (which I posted a pic of once when I had a blog). But I sure as FUCK care if some random weirdo gets turned on by my CHILD which is why you don't post pictures like that online. There's a huge, huge, huge difference. I can't believe people don't see this.

See, I DO NOT CARE. Like literally, do not give a damn if some jacks off to my kids picture. My husband put people in jail who had child porn and made child porn.

I am far more comfortable with them getting off on an innocent picture where my kid was not actually harmed vs children who were actually posed and molested.

Besides, I can assure you, those pictures? They just are rarely the ones found in the collection of child porn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents have been arrested for kiddie porn because of pictures like that.

No they haven't. Intent is a big part of child pornography. My husband was a federal agent investigating child porn for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here, in fact I reported the picture to Blogger/Google for nudity of a minor because she seems to use her baby to get publicity.

I tried to do that but couldn't find a link, can you send it to me?

As for pedophiles, it is very real that they troll looking for such photos. I turned in an acquaintance for pedophilia, and his computer was full of photos he'd gotten from the internet of innocent photos posted by parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I think the picture was tasteless and pointless. But I am not all OMG pedophiles for a previously states reason.

But you know what my husband read in lots and lots of journals of pedophiles and potential pedophiles and people into child porn? Hanging out in family bathrooms. Hanging out at the beach and public pools. Trolling mommy blogs? No. Molesting their neighbor, kid, grandchild, friend of the family? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they haven't. Intent is a big part of child pornography. My husband was a federal agent investigating child porn for years.

Yes they have treemom - arrest is obviously a differen standard from conviction and people have been arrested and had their kids taken away. Sure they weren't convicted and got their kids back but who wants to go through that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with treemom, and I don't think that parents putting up innocent pictures of naked babies on the internet is like inviting a pedophile to... yeah. If a person jerks off to a picture of a half naked baby, THEY are the person with the problem. Not the baby or the parent.

I completely understand why other people would have a problem with it, and I see how you could argue that it's a privacy issue. They, presumably, will not post pictures of diaper changes on the internet, but that doesn't mean that nobody else can or if they do it that they are negligent irresponsible parents. They just think differently than you.

This is still a really weird, weird, bad picture. It's supposed to be a picture of changing pants, but there are no pants in sight, and mom is not actively doing anything but just staring at a half naked baby. In the trunk of a car, no less!! It doesn't look innocent to me. I looks staged. I presume that she knows something of photography, and the way the lighting is and colors in that picture are dark and then bright white baby genitals in the middle of the picture make it really obvious that this picture is not about a diaper change, but about baby genitals. I have a hard time believing that it was an accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've seen her blog. But what I get from previous posts is that old girl seems a little bit...slow? Just the vibe I get from her writing style and the minutae that she seems to think is interesting. Before I read all the comments here I was thinking that maybe it's a result of her accident. Honestly, she writes like someone with a brain injury - and I DO NOT mean that in a snarky way. Just very disjointed.

I googled her later - this is the first I've heard of her - and got linked to an Oprah article about her where they talk about her husband heroically kicking in doors and saving her. So strange that she would contradict that on her blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they have treemom - arrest is obviously a differen standard from conviction and people have been arrested and had their kids taken away. Sure they weren't convicted and got their kids back but who wants to go through that?

They have not been arrested for KIDDIE PORN. They may have been arrested for something else, but taking a picture like that would not get you a federal kiddie porn arrest.

ETA: Unless someone meant having a picture like that of not their kid. And yes, possibly, but even then they almost always have a slew of other photos. My husband said there are series of photos that almost anyone who gets a child porn arrest has on their computer. One naked kid picture where the intent of taking the picture is not clearly sexual just won't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I understand why other people are uncomfortable with it. It just doesn't matter to me personally.

I am way more bothered by the idea that pictures I have posted have just invaded my kids privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I DO NOT CARE. Like literally, do not give a damn if some jacks off to my kids picture. My husband put people in jail who had child porn and made child porn.

I am far more comfortable with them getting off on an innocent picture where my kid was not actually harmed vs children who were actually posed and molested.

Besides, I can assure you, those pictures? They just are rarely the ones found in the collection of child porn.

Thank you.

The extremity of people who freak out at others taking pictures of parks that may include their kids because OMG Pedophiles annoys the hell out of me. I blame fearmongering news media and Law & Order SVU (partially joking, partially not). Besides, if pictures like these were in fact the type that investigators found in pedophiles' collections, one would thing that those in to such things would just buy an Anne Geddes calendar or a children's clothes catalogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.

The extremity of people who freak out at others taking pictures of parks that may include their kids because OMG Pedophiles annoys the hell out of me. I blame fearmongering news media and Law & Order SVU (partially joking, partially not). Besides, if pictures like these were in fact the type that investigators found in pedophiles' collections, one would thing that those in to such things would just buy an Anne Geddes calendar or a children's clothes catalogue.

I think it's odd that a parent wouldnt care if pics of their kid were found on a pedophile's hard drive. It does happen - what about that heather spohr lady?

But even if you're not worried about pedophiles, I still think its an inappropriate Pic to post. And I think it's especially odd that a hardcore mormon, so concerned that girls not show their shoulders, would post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.

The extremity of people who freak out at others taking pictures of parks that may include their kids because OMG Pedophiles annoys the hell out of me. I blame fearmongering news media and Law & Order SVU (partially joking, partially not). Besides, if pictures like these were in fact the type that investigators found in pedophiles' collections, one would thing that those in to such things would just buy an Anne Geddes calendar or a children's clothes catalogue.

For the record until my husband spend years investigating primarily digital images of child pornography I thought the same things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's odd that a parent wouldnt care if pics of their kid were found on a pedophile's hard drive. It does happen - what about that heather spohr lady?

But even if you're not worried about pedophiles, I still think its an inappropriate Pic to post. And I think it's especially odd that a hardcore mormon, so concerned that girls not show their shoulders, would post it.

I am not saying it does happen. I am saying that those are a very slim minority of all the pictures that would be found in one person's collection (which usually spans way more than one hard drive). But if my son's were, I might be a little squicked out. But the same sort of just sex and kids squicky.

I would rather a pedophile have an entire hard drive of pictures of my kid only, who was not harmed, molested, touched, posed or hurt in any way in the taking of said pictures than one picture of a kid who was actually purposely photo'ed for porn. One is a theoretical harm, the idea that his image is connected with him. One is most definitely an actual harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh not to mention the court ruled several years ago that for digital images you have to prove the child actually exists for a conviction. So arrests for people with images of children that can be identified went down. (also, as far as I know no one was ever arrested before my husband completed his forensic investigation, and he has thousands of these under his belt)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with treemom, and I don't think that parents putting up innocent pictures of naked babies on the internet is like inviting a pedophile to... yeah. If a person jerks off to a picture of a half naked baby, THEY are the person with the problem. Not the baby or the parent.

I completely understand why other people would have a problem with it, and I see how you could argue that it's a privacy issue. They, presumably, will not post pictures of diaper changes on the internet, but that doesn't mean that nobody else can or if they do it that they are negligent irresponsible parents. They just think differently than you.

This is still a really weird, weird, bad picture. It's supposed to be a picture of changing pants, but there are no pants in sight, and mom is not actively doing anything but just staring at a half naked baby. In the trunk of a car, no less!! It doesn't look innocent to me. I looks staged. I presume that she knows something of photography, and the way the lighting is and colors in that picture are dark and then bright white baby genitals in the middle of the picture make it really obvious that this picture is not about a diaper change, but about baby genitals. I have a hard time believing that it was an accident.

I'm not familiar with the person in question, nor have I seen the picture. However, having investigated the mentality of these types of people, I would say that it is unlikely that the person does know all the aspects of photography that you mention.

They simply don't think about aesthetics on such an analytical level. There is also the amazing level of denial that these folks are able to embrace. I could actually imagine this person claiming that she did not realize that the baby's genitals were so prominent in the photo.

One thing that comes to mind is a record album cover that I have seen on the internet among lists of hilariously bad album covers. It is a Christian record, the cover shows four creepy-looking middle-aged men, and a title "Let Me Touch Him."

Of course we know that the intended message is much different than the perceived message, but could they really have been so naive as to put that record out without realizing how people would so readily interpret that message?

Apparently.

This is not to say that the picture is an accident -- maybe that woman is a stark-raving creepo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with treemom, and I don't think that parents putting up innocent pictures of naked babies on the internet is like inviting a pedophile to... yeah. If a person jerks off to a picture of a half naked baby, THEY are the person with the problem. Not the baby or the parent.

I completely understand why other people would have a problem with it, and I see how you could argue that it's a privacy issue. They, presumably, will not post pictures of diaper changes on the internet, but that doesn't mean that nobody else can or if they do it that they are negligent irresponsible parents. They just think differently than you.

This is still a really weird, weird, bad picture. It's supposed to be a picture of changing pants, but there are no pants in sight, and mom is not actively doing anything but just staring at a half naked baby. In the trunk of a car, no less!! It doesn't look innocent to me. I looks staged. I presume that she knows something of photography, and the way the lighting is and colors in that picture are dark and then bright white baby genitals in the middle of the picture make it really obvious that this picture is not about a diaper change, but about baby genitals. I have a hard time believing that it was an accident.

I agree. Weird as shit, and completely pointless - BUT also not OMGSHOCKING. It's a half-naked baby. I don't particularly want to see it, but it doesn't freak me out. If people get off on that, it's them who have the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a graphic designer and as such often have to find photos on stock photo sites to use for customer's ads, postcards, etc. There are tons of naked baby photos on stock photo sites and while the majority tend to be butt shots, there are also many that are full frontals of boys and girls. Many of these are on micro-stock sites and can be purchased for as little as one dollar (or less). So while there may be pervs who download and save crappy photos like the one nienie posted, there is no shortage of naked baby photos that anyone can buy legally for hardly any money at all and they are not considered porn images, but royalty-free stock photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

I went over there expecting to see something.... other than what was there, I suppose. I'd be more concerned if it were a close up picture and if the child's genitalia were the focal point. It just looks like a crappy photo with no point to it, of the kind that used to occur more frequently in the days of film cameras, when we took fewer photos and didn't know how crap they would turn out til we sent the film off for developing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

":397z3bnj]

I'm not familiar with the person in question, nor have I seen the picture. However, having investigated the mentality of these types of people, I would say that it is unlikely that the person does know all the aspects of photography that you mention.

They simply don't think about aesthetics on such an analytical level. There is also the amazing level of denial that these folks are able to embrace. I could actually imagine this person claiming that she did not realize that the baby's genitals were so prominent in the photo.

One thing that comes to mind is a record album cover that I have seen on the internet among lists of hilariously bad album covers. It is a Christian record, the cover shows four creepy-looking middle-aged men, and a title "Let Me Touch Him."

Of course we know that the intended message is much different than the perceived message, but could they really have been so naive as to put that record out without realizing how people would so readily interpret that message?

Apparently.

This is not to say that the picture is an accident -- maybe that woman is a stark-raving creepo.

You might be right. I guess she could be completely clueless about how prominent the belly-down baby is in the picture, but something about it gives me the feeling that it wasn't an accident.

You don't have to analyze the aesthetics to know that that picture isn't really about a diaper change. She's not even in the process of changing the diaper.

ETA: I think this has more to do with the person taking the picture than Nie herself. She might not realize what the picture looks like, but I think the camera holder must have. It seems like the baby was naked in the middle of a diaper change and they said, "Hey wait, stop for a minute I want to get a picture!" Creeeeepy. If she was the one who wanted the picture taken she would have posed in some way, but she's not, she's just stopped in the middle of a diaper change doing nothing, waiting for a photo to be taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, she still hasn't pulled the picture. I was kind of hoping with all the emails she has got to be receiving that when I checked out her blog the picture would be gone. That is really an inappropriate picture to put on the internet, if you want to take pictures like that at least keep them in a family album (though I still wouldn't like to see it when thumbing through someone's baby pictures).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.