Why are pictures of naked babies acceptable?

Post Reply New Topic

My mom has multiple pictures of me naked as a baby, and she said that wasn't considered child pornography. I don't understand why, though. Why are naked baby pictures considered all right but not pictures of those a few years older? What's the minimum age for it to be considered pornography?

Or, for that matter, why is it okay for babies to be naked but no one else? What's so wrong about the human body that people need to wear clothing so much? I mean, it makes sense during the winter, but what about in the summer [or, if you live in a hot place] to have to wear clothing? Ancient Egyptian children often went around without clothing, and I think they might have had the right idea. Or I'm just a weird kitty with weird ideas.

I don't understand why YouTube allows videos of women giving birth unblurred but but they take down any other vids where people are naked. Women giving birth is a sick fetish that some enjoy.

I'm not sure if it's acceptable anymore. I heard of people showing their infants on Facebook and making sure they at least have a diaper on or a blanket covering them, just to be safe.

In North America people are "modest" (note the quotations), and nudity is nearly always seen as sexual. If a NA guy buys a copy of National Geographic just because it shows native women, he's probably not thinking about how breasts are not seen as sexual in their culture. But just because something is different in another country doesn't mean it's wrong. Both sides should think about that.

this sort of thing always make me uncomfortable, i dont know why this kind of thing is considered normal its.....ew. luckily my parents dont have any pictures of me when im a baby like that, the nightmare fuel that would be.

maybe its just considered parental pride, so therefore nothing wrong with it according to normal people....and they call us weird.

I don't know what it is with parents and their mildly sadistic love of posting humiliating pictures or videos of their small children. They might think it's funny showing the entire world their toddler screaming bloody murder on Santa's lap or throwing up at least a couple of liters of food in public, but I'm thinking their kid is going to really hate them in about ten years or so, or will be describing this to a psychiatrist, or both.

At least my parents don't have any photos like that from when I was a kid. Well, they have a couple that are a little embarrassing, but at least they're not putting it up on Facebook.

I think it's weird.

What makes something considered child pornography or not is the intent behind the photograph. Is the intent of this image the sexual arousal of a more mature person or is it just a cute picture of a child that just happens to not have clothing on?

If you need to question why it isn't then maybe you have some issues of your own. There is nothing wrong or improper about the naked human form whatever the age. There are of course times and places where we would consider nudity as inappropriate. A common denominator here is why some choose to rubber stamp a sexual emphasis on an otherwise perfectly normal being or situation.

I'm curious as to an actual legal perspective on this, because I can assure you "intent" is 0% of the law. If it violates the law it violates the law-- intent, knowledge of the law, etc. are irrelevant.

Big surprise but underage nudity isn't illegal in some contexts, it has to be sexual in nature. Some people have gotten in trouble for naked baby pictures say at Wal Mart getting the photo but almost all the charges against these examples where dropped. Its a gray area but I am not really bothered by it since my family has done this sorta thing for years. There is no malice here but I would be careful doing this sort of thing now.

I think its sad when sociality legitimately can't tell the difference between a innocent child playing naked in a bath or something vs dressing them up in sexual clothing and having them pose in a suggestive way.

I heard of pedophiles getting arrested for having nude non sexual pics of kids & babies.

1. Those aren't pedophiles if it was one of the cases I was referring to, though a mother did get into trouble at a Wal Mart for it.
2. Your description of a pedophile is dangerously broad and under your description a lot of mothers are pedophiles.

Source for number one

They were people who had no relations at all to the kids & got the pix online

I remember reading one of Raymond Chen's blog posts on how the original Windows 95 CD apparently had a picture of a topless baby in its hologram, and some government went nuts over that. The baby was male, and only shown from the waist up. Here's the link. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnew ... 0/?p=42803

It always baffles me how it seems perfectly acceptable to show young toddler girls topless in diapers, but as they become older, that's a no-no. Everybody has nipples.

Lets ask the question the other way around - Why are pictures of naked people unacceptable at some point?

Nakedness and pornography are different things, so where is the problem? I dont get it...

Peace
TK