Children and changing attitudes

[ianjmatt]

I picked up a great book yesterday from the second hand bookshop, 'Complete Course in Photographing Children' by John Hedgecoe, published in 1980. A really helpful book with good advice and fantastics shots but it struck me how different the book is compared to how it would look today. There are lots of shots of naked kids, swimsuits, leotards etc. It is all entirely innocent and charming - especially the candid shots. But it also feels a bit uncomfortable today.

It got me wondering. Is it just changing attitudes - one approach not better than the other; were people hopelessly naive during my childhood (I was ten when this was published), or have we taken innocence away for our kids (and perhaps ourselves) with out fears today.

I cannot imagine being able to take the camera to my son's Gymnastics class and take some candid shots, or get all the neighbourhood kids around to take funny pictures of them in states of undress with a water hose. Really - it would never happen!

 

[neil_g]

the world is a paranoid paranoid place these days.

 

[Decca]

I have a photo I took in the 80s when I was seven (with a Olympus OM-1 fact fans) of my (then) five year old brother stark naked dangling his willy over a sprinkler. Back then it was shown to grandparents and got laughs for him and isn't she clever for me (note please: my grandparents did not learn to read till they were in their 50s and even today anything modern is clever and complicated), same photo today....

 

[Decca]

actually I'm getting more annoyed the more I think about it so I'm going to rebel in my own small way.

I don't believe for one second that posting these are going to expose my children to OMG INTERNET PERVERTS!!111!!


rrtram1 by Learnin' Curve, on Flickr


rrtram7 by Learnin' Curve, on Flickr

my kids not giving a flying fig

 

[specialman]

Great post - considered and even-handed.... and true!!!

I took my lad to the paddling pool in Warwick park last weekend and a bloke was there taking shots of his kid...... I clocked him straightaway, simply because I then looked around to see if there were any disapproving looks going his way - I couldn't see any, but even by me doing that, I shows that even I have been affected by this social paranoia. In the end, I said to the missus that it was good to see people enjoying their kid's childhood and recording it on film. Kind of felt that I'd cleansed myself a little by saying to myself that it was okay......

 

[malo50]

That's what kids are supposed to look like, and it's a <#%%>|{}< shame that any innocence gets taken away from lovely images like these.

 

[yoby]

I don't think it has anything to do with naivety at all to be honest. Since the '80's we've been nannied and fed with almost constant scaremongering as a 'reason' for yet more nannying. Sadly, these days it's getting more and more difficult for most people to have an opinion of their own, as the one's we're reading or hearing on a daily basis are so much more convenient. Makes me quite angry.

Sure there were just as many perverts and such like around when we were kids, it's just our parents had a more realistic view on probabilities because they weren't constantly exposed to the aforementioned scaremongering. That's why we (as kids) were out all day with no mobiles, playing, using our imagination, and burning off all that fatty unhealthy food we all used to eat in the olden days.

Saddens me to think that in 20 years time there'll be no real record of children in the noughties to exhibit. (See Paul Trevor's "Like you've never been away")

 

[Alastair]

A few things spring to mind..

• We're now into the second generation of parents exposed to global, rolling news media sensationalism. 24hr news needs to be filled, scaremongering is a cheap way of doing this and creates its own momentum to fill the void
• Families are smaller and more isolated from the extended family. Parents and grandparents are investing enormous amounts of financial and emotional resources in fewer children, often in throwaway toys and clothing to create an illusion of something?
• A sense of entitlement (rights) has increased whilst responsibility has decreased, when something goes wrong there's an automatic assumption that there is someone else to blame
• The body of evidence continues to grow that a child is more likely to be molested by a member of their own close family, so when there's the rare occurrence of an un-related perpetrator there's a collective sigh of relief as the mob sharpens the pitchforks - noone really wants to admit that the greatest threat to the safety of their child is themselves
• Attitudes haven't really changed very much in wider society towards rape and spousal abuse of adult women, a reactionary attack against the far rarer incidence of stranger assault on children (see above) diverts attention from this
• Grown women are being encouraged by grown men to adopt prebuscent body types, much easier to set out in pursuit of the rare child mollester than question why it's becoming the norm to remove all trace of body hair. It will be dressed up as some vague "hygiene" desire, but ultimately wanting a woman to shave her pubic area is expressing a desire to haxe sex with a prepubescent girl (or boy, the distinction becomes less and less clear the thinner and more hairless the body becomes)

The last is interesting as the same publications that lead the scaremongering frequently also lead the way in reinforcing this new body-ideal, criticising the slightest perceived defect or failure to groom.

The Express is particularly hard to take seriously on any of these topics when viewed as a very small newpaper within a much larger pornography empire.

 

[Russ77]

Even within my family there are differences in opinions to what photos are suitable for say facebook......

My sister-in-law is paranoid that any photos of my nieces and nephew will fall into the domain of a P**** regardless of how they are dressed.

My sister doesn't really give a damn

On a recent holiday to Fuerterventura my fianceé and I got talking to some couples who had kids ranging between the age of abour 4 - 7 (3 girls and a boy), what was nice was the fact they were more than happy for me to get some photos of them playing in/around the pool. They even let the kids go "rudie-nudie" for a while when they were drying off after a swim.

It's such a shame that kids can't just be kids anymore and jump in the pool starkers or dangle their bits over sprinklers without someone deciding it's wrong :shrug:

The World we live in is different to the one I grew up in during the 80s but I don't believe it's as bad as everyone makes out, just different

 

[Harvey_nikon]

*Grown women are being encouraged by grown men to adopt prebuscent body types, much easier to set out in pursuit of the rare child mollester than question why it's becoming the norm to remove all trace of body hair. It will be dressed up as some vague "hygiene" desire, but ultimately wanting a woman to shave her pubic area is expressing a desire to haxe sex with a prepubescent girl (or boy, the distinction becomes less and less clear the thinner and more hairless the body becomes)

HAHAHA

and may I also add.....:thumbsdown:

Just another sweeping generalisation that has NO evidence. There are many reasons for this, and not something that is worth going in to here in detail.

 

[Russ77]

HAHAHA

and may I also add.....:thumbsdown:

Just another sweeping generalisation that has NO evidence. There are many reasons for this, and not something that is worth going in to here in detail.

Agreed!!!

Most women I know absolutely hate body hair and shave/wax/pluck it regardless of what anyone else thinks!!

 

[yoby]

Back to the Changing attitudes again, it may not be just attitudes that have changed as well, has the law itself been updated too? Given both the emotional and legal grey area it's only natural that most people (including the amateur and pro togs) would think twice about what they're aiming their lenses at. I guess what I'm saying is that on reflection (and slightly at odds with my earlier post I suppose) is that it isn't necessarily all about the fear of the images falling into the wrong hands.

Sand by the scaremongering though, which must have started as far back as the early 90's if any one can remember the headlines. Pretty sure it was Julia Somerville (the newsreader) who was arrested, and subsequently investigated by the police for having photos of her daughter in the bath (iirc it was Boots that called them in when she got them developed). She claimed innocent family snaps, media claimed child pornography......

More recently, there was the Australian guy having his exhibition closed down and images seized because some of them were of naked/partially naked minors? Can't remember if he was charged or not.

 

[Decca]

I had this conversation with my friend a while back, I went to the local park and the only toilet there is one end of the children's sand play area (you have to walk through it to get there). I found myself caught short and hurried to it with my dslr still round my neck. The looks I got even though the cap was on, I had it pointing down and the lens was a 70-300... Friend and I agreed that if one was going to be pervery then a whacking great dslr would not be the camera of choice, it would be a phone camera and you know who has those? Nearly everyone.

 

[DorsetDude]

Most women I know absolutely hate body hair and shave/wax/pluck it regardless of what anyone else thinks!!

Can ya see ma growler?

(Why that came to mind Im not entirely sure)

 

[andya700]

A few things spring to mind..

• We're now into the second generation of parents exposed to global, rolling news media sensationalism. 24hr news needs to be filled, scaremongering is a cheap way of doing this and creates its own momentum to fill the void
• Families are smaller and more isolated from the extended family. Parents and grandparents are investing enormous amounts of financial and emotional resources in fewer children, often in throwaway toys and clothing to create an illusion of something?
• A sense of entitlement (rights) has increased whilst responsibility has decreased, when something goes wrong there's an automatic assumption that there is someone else to blame
• The body of evidence continues to grow that a child is more likely to be molested by a member of their own close family, so when there's the rare occurrence of an un-related perpetrator there's a collective sigh of relief as the mob sharpens the pitchforks - noone really wants to admit that the greatest threat to the safety of their child is themselves
• Attitudes haven't really changed very much in wider society towards rape and spousal abuse of adult women, a reactionary attack against the far rarer incidence of stranger assault on children (see above) diverts attention from this
• Grown women are being encouraged by grown men to adopt prebuscent body types, much easier to set out in pursuit of the rare child mollester than question why it's becoming the norm to remove all trace of body hair. It will be dressed up as some vague "hygiene" desire, but ultimately wanting a woman to shave her pubic area is expressing a desire to haxe sex with a prepubescent girl (or boy, the distinction becomes less and less clear the thinner and more hairless the body becomes)

The last is interesting as the same publications that lead the scaremongering frequently also lead the way in reinforcing this new body-ideal, criticising the slightest perceived defect or failure to groom.

The Express is particularly hard to take seriously on any of these topics when viewed as a very small newpaper within a much larger pornography empire.

Excellent post Alastair, particularly the bit about entitlement, responsibility and blame.
I would also add, that the "screaming, outraged" media, are very much to blame for pressurising young people to "grow up" (adopt adult behaviour and dress codes) too quickly, thus robbiing them of - childhood.
The parents who shout the loudest about "perverts" are very often the ones who take no care of their own children.
It is hard to believe that it is only forty odd years (13 - 16), since my mates and I used to go fishing for a whole weekend, camping out, no parents to be seen, and we never saw anything untoward.
Times have changed - for the better?

 

[littlemonster]

You know... now admittedly I am 1) Female and 2) 19..

But I've yet to have any sort of dirty look or bad comment for having a camera around kids. Or taking photos of said kids.

I know it's worse for men... but I've just not seen the issues.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

You know... now admittedly I am 1) Female and 2) 19..

But I've yet to have any sort of dirty look or bad comment for having a camera around kids. Or taking photos of said kids.

I know it's worse for men... but I've just not seen the issues.

I've only experienced it once, and that was shortly after getting the D700. Popped in to town to take some photos, and 2 drunk lads asked why I had such a big camera, i said to take photos and the called me an ****ing p****.

It was after 10pm on a school night and it was cold. I lost my temper and started having a go back, my work mates were just around the corner as well. the 2 guys stumbled off!

 

[DannyDMR]

You know... now admittedly I am 1) Female and 2) 19..

But I've yet to have any sort of dirty look or bad comment for having a camera around kids. Or taking photos of said kids.

I know it's worse for men... but I've just not seen the issues.

thats because your female imo, even though there are more female child molesters than there are men but how often do u hear of female child molester compared to males?

 

[Alastair]

thats because your female imo, even though there are more female child molesters than there are men but how often do u hear of female child molester compared to males?

Really? That's a very surprising statement.

Researchers from the Lucy Faithfull Foundation (LFF), a child protection charity that deals with British female sex offenders, said its studies confirmed that a "fair proportion" of child abusers were women. Donald Findlater, director of research and development, said results indicated that up to 20% of a conservative estimate of 320,000 suspected UK paedophiles were women.

source

The research literature highlighted that females can, and do, perpetrate sexual offences and are responsible for up to 5 per cent of all sexual offences committed against children.

source

 

[littlemonster]

Agreed, it is probably being female. But even so, females do get problems with it.

Alastair, as far as I know, a lot less female cases are ever actually tried, often they're dropped and it's also generally considered a lot less cases are reported, although obviously proving that is next to impossible.

More though.. not a clue.

 

[malo50]

A few things spring to mind..

• Grown women are being encouraged by grown men to adopt prebuscent body types, much easier to set out in pursuit of the rare child mollester than question why it's becoming the norm to remove all trace of body hair. It will be dressed up as some vague "hygiene" desire, but ultimately wanting a woman to shave her pubic area is expressing a desire to haxe sex with a prepubescent girl (or boy, the distinction becomes less and less clear the thinner and more hairless the body becomes)

This is the most unmitigated pile of [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] I've ever read:thumbsdown:

 

[DannyDMR]

This is the most unmitigated pile of [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] I've ever read:thumbsdown:

if it were true then men would have to follow suit and shave all hair off

 

[Daryl]

Who said Global? It's just this country and our stupid Backward thinking generation parents.

Do what you want and when you want.. and if some T***ers parent says anything to you tell them that 99% of kiddie fiddlers are reletives/Family members or some one close to the family. and only 1% would ever be a complete stranger.

In 7 years of Scenes of Crime with one of the Biggest Police forces never saw a p**** case. Child/parent neglect? Yes, big time but never the kack that parents worry about.

They all need a good slapping. Parents can be such idiots..... Yep all of them.

 

[Decca]

That's a bit harsh, sure I'll never take photos of my children that would obviously sexualize them, like for example every single one of those god awful American children's beauty pageant pictures. Innocence yes, photos as if they were glamour models no, if only because it's seriously creepy.

 

[malo50]

Who said Global? It's just this country and our stupid Backward thinking generation parents.

Do what you want and when you want.. and if some T***ers parent says anything to you tell them that 995 of kiddie fiddlers are reletives/Family members or some one close to the family. and only 15 would ever be a complete stranger.

In 7 years of Scenes of Crime with one of the Biggest Police forces never saw a p**** case. Child/parent neglect? Yes, big time but never the kack that parents worry about.

They all need a good slapping. Parents can be such idiots..... Yep all of them.

A lot of the contributors on this thread are parents bemoaning the attitude SOME people have about photographing kids. As such they're supporting your argument, by calling ALL parents idiots you're ****ing on your own bonfire.

 

[POAH]

[*]Grown women are being encouraged by grown men to adopt prebuscent body types, much easier to set out in pursuit of the rare child mollester than question why it's becoming the norm to remove all trace of body hair. It will be dressed up as some vague "hygiene" desire, but ultimately wanting a woman to shave her pubic area is expressing a desire to haxe sex with a prepubescent girl (or boy, the distinction becomes less and less clear the thinner and more hairless the body becomes)

lol I think you'll find woman shave their public hair because they want to. not having hair in vaginal area makes it easier to clean.

on a personal note I prefer not getting hairs in my mouth

 

[ANDYHOP]

A few things spring to mind..

• We're now into the second generation of parents exposed to global, rolling news media sensationalism. 24hr news needs to be filled, scaremongering is a cheap way of doing this and creates its own momentum to fill the void
• Families are smaller and more isolated from the extended family. Parents and grandparents are investing enormous amounts of financial and emotional resources in fewer children, often in throwaway toys and clothing to create an illusion of something?
• A sense of entitlement (rights) has increased whilst responsibility has decreased, when something goes wrong there's an automatic assumption that there is someone else to blame
• The body of evidence continues to grow that a child is more likely to be molested by a member of their own close family, so when there's the rare occurrence of an un-related perpetrator there's a collective sigh of relief as the mob sharpens the pitchforks - noone really wants to admit that the greatest threat to the safety of their child is themselves
• Attitudes haven't really changed very much in wider society towards rape and spousal abuse of adult women, a reactionary attack against the far rarer incidence of stranger assault on children (see above) diverts attention from this
• Grown women are being encouraged by grown men to adopt prebuscent body types, much easier to set out in pursuit of the rare child mollester than question why it's becoming the norm to remove all trace of body hair. It will be dressed up as some vague "hygiene" desire, but ultimately wanting a woman to shave her pubic area is expressing a desire to haxe sex with a prepubescent girl (or boy, the distinction becomes less and less clear the thinner and more hairless the body becomes)

The last is interesting as the same publications that lead the scaremongering frequently also lead the way in reinforcing this new body-ideal, criticising the slightest perceived defect or failure to groom.

The Express is particularly hard to take seriously on any of these topics when viewed as a very small newpaper within a much larger pornography empire.

10/10 hit the nail on the head.

 

[Lindsay D]

lol I think you'll find woman shave their public hair because they want to. not having hair in vaginal area makes it easier to clean.

on a personal note I prefer not getting hairs in my mouth

I can say that of all the female friends that I know to have shaved or waxed pubic areas, it has been at the behest of their male partners, and not something they would otherwise see fit to do, let alone see as necessary. One of my mates is a beautician and confirms that view. Whether this is for pervy reasons or otherwise, I don't know, I'm not too sure that any bloke would admit to the former.

For my own part, I'd tell the guy to **** off, I happen to like my pubes.

Personally I think men with shaved legs or genital areas look awful (but hairy backs and shoulders should be dealt with).

EDIT: I agree with Alastair's statements.

 

[Smeggypants]

[*]Grown women are being encouraged by grown men to adopt prebuscent body types, much easier to set out in pursuit of the rare child mollester than question why it's becoming the norm to remove all trace of body hair. It will be dressed up as some vague "hygiene" desire, but ultimately wanting a woman to shave her pubic area is expressing a desire to haxe sex with a prepubescent girl (or boy, the distinction becomes less and less clear the thinner and more hairless the body becomes)

I've never heard such nonsense. In fact it's quite a disturbing thing to suggest.

 

[ianjmatt]

I've never heard such nonsense. In fact it's quite a disturbing thing to suggest.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is a commonly held view amongst cultural theorists, feminist theorists (such as Naomi Wolfe) and quite a few psychotherapists and psychiatrists. It is such a recent thing - women only started shaving their pubic regions in the last few decades really.

I couldn't say if it was true or not though.

 

[Smeggypants]

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is a commonly held view amongst cultural theorists, feminist theorists (such as Naomi Wolfe) and quite a few psychotherapists and psychiatrists. It is such a recent thing - women only started shaving their pubic regions in the last few decades really.

I couldn't say if it was true or not though.

Indeed. It's a fashion/culture thing.

I love shaven pubes on women, I find it sexy. I also love curvy women, ala Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, Marilyn Monroe, etc - I find the figures of women who starve themselves to look like a 12 year old boy, like Victoria Beckham, Kate Middleton,etc a total turn off

To claim that people who like shaven pubes are paedophiles is absurd. Maybe those making such claims should question their own desires.

I also know many women who shave or close crop their pubes because they want to do it and not because they are pressured from a partner.

 

[POAH]

I can say that of all the female friends that I know to have shaved or waxed pubic areas, it has been at the behest of their male partners, and not something they would otherwise see fit to do, let alone see as necessary. One of my mates is a beautician and confirms that view. Whether this is for pervy reasons or otherwise, I don't know, I'm not too sure that any bloke would admit to the former.

For my own part, I'd tell the guy to **** off, I happen to like my pubes.

Personally I think men with shaved legs or genital areas look awful (but hairy backs and shoulders should be dealt with).

EDIT: I agree with Alastair's statements.

obviously depends on your friends I suppose.

do you like kissing a man with a beard? my wife certainly doesn't

 

[Phil V]

obviously depends on your friends I suppose.

do you like kissing a man with a beard? my wife certainly doesn't

Whereas; my wife does

 

[Cobra]

Guy's! (in a non gender sense)
This thread has strayed way off the original topic.
We certainly do not need these two "subjects" in the same thread!

Lets get it back on track, PDQ. Or it will be closed.
1st and final warning.

Thanks

 

[Jonathan Shl]

I picked up a great book yesterday from the second hand bookshop, 'Complete Course in Photographing Children' by John Hedgecoe, published in 1980. A really helpful book with good advice and fantastics shots but it struck me how different the book is compared to how it would look today. There are lots of shots of naked kids, swimsuits, leotards etc. It is all entirely innocent and charming - especially the candid shots. But it also feels a bit uncomfortable today.

It got me wondering. Is it just changing attitudes - one approach not better than the other; were people hopelessly naive during my childhood (I was ten when this was published), or have we taken innocence away for our kids (and perhaps ourselves) with out fears today.

I cannot imagine being able to take the camera to my son's Gymnastics class and take some candid shots, or get all the neighbourhood kids around to take funny pictures of them in states of undress with a water hose. Really - it would never happen!

Trying to get back on topic, the last paragraph describes some of the problems - some of it would be sailing close to the wind these days and might be risky in legal terms, doubly so if someone in law enforcement misinterprets it. How much of it is down to other people's dirty minds is another matter altogether.

 

[POAH]

question is why would you want to?

I can understand if you want to build up a sporting porfolio in order to start selling etc but if you don't know them why would you want to have the pics in the first place?????

I cannot imagine being able to take the camera to my son's Gymnastics class and take some candid shots, or get all the neighbourhood kids around to take funny pictures of them in states of undress with a water hose. Really - it would never happen!

 

[ianjmatt]

question is why would you want to?

I can understand if you want to build up a sporting porfolio in order to start selling etc but if you don't know them why would you want to have the pics in the first place?????

Actually I think that is a weird question for a photography forum. Because:

1.It is good practise
2. Children make good photographic subjects
3. It can tell an interesting story

There are probably plenty more good reasons but these seem justification enough to me.

 

[ianjmatt]

question is why would you want to?

I can understand if you want to build up a sporting porfolio in order to start selling etc but if you don't know them why would you want to have the pics in the first place?????

Oh ... to explain. The context is that they were examples of shots in the book I was referencing in the OP.

 

[Smeggypants]

question is why would you want to?

Why would you want to take pictures of ANYTHING?

I think the above question simply highlights the ridiculous state of paranoia the Establishment ( mainstream media ) has built up in the populace regarding some threat to children that simpyl doesn't exist to the level it's portrayed to be.

Children make great photographic subjects, yet for some it seems they cannot avoid associating sex with a picture of a child and then view anyone else wanting to take pictures of children as doing it for sinister sexual reasons.

I recently did a shoot at the London Naked Bike Ride. My sexual desires are firmly for Women. Yet I took loads of pictures of naked men as well. Why? Because they also made good photographic subjects. Some of the genital jewellery was fascinating ( pic #76).

You can see the pics here

http://www.smeggys.co.uk/images_smeggy_2011-06-11_02_London_Naked_Bike_Ride.php


Some peeps oin here could do with experiencing nudist beaches where propel of ALL ages including children are all naked, are taking pictures of each other and no one bats an eyelid.

A complete contrast to, and a liberation from, the sexually obsessed world we seem to live in in mainstream society.