Tuesday, May 24, 2016 • Midnight Edition • "Special collector's edition 4D variant!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!


As an Australian it sickens me that child porn is being.....

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

superfictious

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Postby superfictious » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:16 am

Woody wrote:You'd be surprised-

we had the girl at the 1 hour photo give me and my mom shit about sink bathing photos of my daughter.


In the end she made it out like she was doing us a favor by letting us keep them.


Shit like that scares me to death. We've taken pictures of our daughter potty-training, and it worries me that stuff like that could land me in jail.

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:39 am

Black_Kryptonian wrote:Shit like that scares me to death. We've taken pictures of our daughter potty-training, and it worries me that stuff like that could land me in jail.


It won't land you in jail. Everyone has photos of their kids bathing in the sink or whatever.

But it could get a photo girl to report it to the police.

and potty training? :? :wink:

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:40 am

Woody wrote:I understand why, it doesn't change the idiocy of it though.


Well, the worker probably feels better to be safe than sorry. Both because if it was porn she could get in trouble legally and wiht her job, and also the danger if she doesn't report it to a kid is less than the danger of not giving you a picture.

I mean, yeah, a little common sense would go a long way, i get that.
User avatar

C20Percent

rubber spoon

Postby C20Percent » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:44 am

This photo is borderline in my opinion. I think there would be cause for concern in American -- hell, people lost their shit a month ago when Miley Cyrus did that spread in Vanity Fair.
User avatar

lancer_man

Expert Post Whore

Postby lancer_man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:45 am

Spiderrob wrote:It won't land you in jail. Everyone has photos of their kids bathing in the sink or whatever.

But it could get a photo girl to report it to the police.

and potty training? :? :wink:



Well it might get you in jail.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991213/pollitt

I remember hearing about this story a few years ago.
User avatar

superfictious

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Postby superfictious » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:45 am

Spiderrob wrote:It won't land you in jail. Everyone has photos of their kids bathing in the sink or whatever.

But it could get a photo girl to report it to the police.

and potty training? :? :wink:


My wife takes pictures of everything. :P My mom has one of me on the potty too when I was a toddler. :oops:
User avatar

Woody

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Woody » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:46 am

Spiderrob wrote:Well, the worker probably feels better to be safe than sorry. Both because if it was porn she could get in trouble legally and wiht her job, and also the danger if she doesn't report it to a kid is less than the danger of not giving you a picture.

I mean, yeah, a little common sense would go a long way, i get that.
that's it though- she wasn't threatening to report it. She just wasn't going to give us the pictures
User avatar

kingbobb

Great Scott!!!

Postby kingbobb » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:48 am

Thunderstorm wrote:No, that doesn't surprise me. That's why I'm not ok with calling this image Child Pornography, even though I'm sure there are people out there who'd find the picture arousing. It's a really complicated topic though.


There are people that find pictures of feet arousing. Or poop. Granted, feet and poop are not often abused as victims in the way that children can be, but we don't have a great movement to ban images of feet because there's a group out there that gets aroused by them.

I understand the fine line, but that's not child porn. While we're not nudists, we do walk around sans clothing at times. We don't think there's anything shameful about nudity, and we're going to try to teach our kids that there's nothing inherantly sexual about just being naked. Americans and people across the world have a hangup with people's bits...even calling them "privates" assigns a taboo association with just seeing them. But I think if people were going to be honest, it's not the parts that make them erotic, it's the shape they're in. And for that, you don't need to be naked in order to find them pleasing.

I question studies that find a link between child nudity and child abuse. But I'm also willing to concede that the dangers of child abuse do justify some additional protections...I think this is worthy of scrutiny, but taking action to curtail what amounts to art goes too far.
User avatar

superfictious

Humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Postby superfictious » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:52 am

Woody wrote:that's it though- she wasn't threatening to report it. She just wasn't going to give us the pictures


Was this the person?

Image
User avatar

C20Percent

rubber spoon

Postby C20Percent » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:53 am

lancer_man wrote:Well it might get you in jail.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991213/pollitt

I remember hearing about this story a few years ago.


An entire roll of naked pictures of an 8-year-old in the bath? If I was going out with this girl when she turned 17 or 18, and I went over to her house and her mother was like, "Here's Amy when she was 8-years-old in the bath." I'd think, "What the fuck?"

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:53 am

lancer_man wrote:Well it might get you in jail.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991213/pollitt

I remember hearing about this story a few years ago.


It may be true but the Nation does not quite seem to treat the issue in a "fair and balanced" manner of its own employee/

and its defense of "we've seen how they interact with their kids, of course they love them" seems a bit too "He was quiet. I had no idea he'd take an axe and murder his entire family." We have no idea what goes behind closed doors.

But as presented, sure that sounds over the line.

Taking pics of your own kid. I get that.

Naked kids in books? I really don't understand that one. Buying a book of naked pictures of strange kids.
User avatar

C20Percent

rubber spoon

Postby C20Percent » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:55 am

So, at what age do you stop taking naked pictures of your kids? When does that become inappropriate?
User avatar

lancer_man

Expert Post Whore

Postby lancer_man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:56 am

Spiderrob wrote:It may be true but the Nation does not quite seem to treat the issue in a "fair and balanced" manner of its own employee/



I knew you would have an issue with the nation article. :roll: I thought you liked politically biased jornalism. :-D

But I could not find one of the Cleveland Plain Dealer articles about this. It was a big deal at the time. Many people in the area were outraged.
User avatar

kingbobb

Great Scott!!!

Postby kingbobb » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:57 am

We've got tons of naked pics of our kids. They both still love "naked time," although Neva's spoiled naked time for a while by contributing extra oopsie with her naked time, so she doesn't get much. But I don't want other people having naked pics of our kids, and I don't want pics of other people's naked kids.

I'm also not into artsy images beyond what me or Vicki can take. We've got a nice print of some wetlands that Vicki took a while ago. If there's a non-porn market for this, I don't see that much of a problem with it. While that 11 year old might not be able to communicate the value, or the lack of harm, I don't think that's really here nor there. It's probably more harmful for her to have to hear other people say how bad the pictures are.

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:57 am

Stewart, who has been suspended from her job in Oberlin (35 miles southwest of Cleveland) pending the outcome of the trial, has systematically photographed her “miracle” daughter, born after several miscarriages, the girl's entire life. She has taken some 40,000 pictures in all. Among the snapshots were a few of the eight-year-old in the bathtub last summer. When an area photography lab turned the pictures over to the police, Stewart faced criminal prosecution.



As an aside, while not criminal, 40,000 pictures of your child? She may just be a tad obsessed :shock:

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acousticgorilla, Google [Bot], Ward Fowler and 25 guests

cron