Am i being a prude...

[Peanutbuttertuesday]

... or is posting photos of your DCs in their undies on fb a bit odd?

A friend of a friend keeps putting them up and i was really quite taken aback. So much so that i've hidden her posts.
Don't get me wrong, i have nothing against people letting their kids be naked, in fact my DS seems to spend half his time running around the house in the nude! But i would never dream of putting the pictures up, i mean, i don't know her THAT well and it's so easy for other people to access fb accounts.
AIBU or is that just very inappropriate. Do you think i should say something?

isn't it a shame to leap to the worst possible conclusion about sharing photos of your lovely children with close friends and family??

So what, thats ok if they do that then? Well i know you can't wrap them in cotton wool, but i think putting photos of kids in their underwear online is a bit irresponsible to be honest.

I guess we are all entitled to our opinion about looking at naked children on the beach or children in their underwear on facebook. Personally, I think children who are comfortable in their own skins are a delight.

But yabu if you think you have a right to say 'something' to your friend. You should not say anything...its not your facebook account, not your photos and they are not your kids.

Agree you are being hysterical.

It personally wouldn't bother me either way, I tend to just get annoyed by spam posts and constant gross photograph uploading/oversharing from people, but if you don' like it OP then i'd limit their profile or hide their posts like i do with other posts i don't want to see.

FB, despite it's security settings, isn't 'private' anymore then the internet is so unless your friend asks you if it is or doesn't realise and would be uncomfortable realising it, then I'd stay silent about that. Really, people should and probably are already aware of it.

It all depends on whether you believe every man is a paedo or not.....

There are pics of two in a paddling pool in their swimwear...can't see the harm tbh, and can't see the difference between that and underwear??

FabbyChic Sun 30-Oct-11 18:09:41
I hope her pictures are private. Peado's trawl facebook accounts looking for pics of children

How on earth could they do that, there is no search facility on photos in facebook, nor are the photos tagged in anyway to be trawled through.. it just wouldnt happen.

It would however be very easy to trawl through adverts for baby lotion, nappies, moisturiser, baby clothes.. to get images of children.

well i have photos of my young children either naked or nearly naked. You don't actually see everything as they are sitting down, in their car etc. They look so cute and loved getting naked, saying it's a respect thing is silly. I don't force them to go naked so I can take their picture, they quite happily played away naked quite often. I think it's sad that people get al worked up about it and I refuse to become paranoid that ever pervert and their Uncle Kevin is lingering around every corner.

I don't understand the comments about kids naked/in undies being 'unnecessary'. Does everything everyone does have to be necessary to be acceptable?

i don't think it's about being prudish, i had to tell my kids step-mum to take pics off her fb of my kids in the bath think the internet is not the place for nude/nearly nude photos of kids imho!

You all know that your children are FAR more at risk from people you know than strangers don't you.

WandersOffKnowingSheWon'tBeHeardTiggaxx

'why'? Well ...

People like to take and show photos of their kids.
Kids (on holiday, playing etc) will sometimes be naked/in undies.
Photos of kids will often therefore show them naked/in undies.
People like to take and show photos of their kids ...

Do you get the drift?

And hearhearfortigga.

ahh the joys of facebook. Im not sure why you would feel the need to put pictures like this anywhere in the public domain but thats just me not really grasping the whole facebook thing

If you think it's rude, then you are a prude.
if you think it's dangerous because of paedophiles then you are hysterical.

But if you think it's a bit insensitive and undignified to put up pictures of anyone without their consent ( and I would be very surprised if a 7 year old would consent to the display anywhere of a picture of him in his pants) then you have a very valid point

Isn't it a shame to jump to the worst possible conclusion about sharing photos of your lovely children with close friends and family?
The op's point was surely that this wasn't necessarily the case, the poster on Facebook had 400 friends and op wasn't a particularly close one, so what other mere aquaintances were they shared with also?

Doesn't bother me in the slightest - but then on my FB is a photo of my DD's bare arse when she was learning to swim (face and feet down in the water, bare arse proudly poking out!). The only comment I got from friends and family were "What a cute butt", "She'll kill you when she's a teenager!" and "Are you supposed to hold them underwater for that long?"

When we lived abroad she spent most of her time naked, it didn't bother her then, and doesn't now (she was 3 when the photo was taken, she's 6 now, she knows about it and thinks it's funny).

No different to the horrible photo of me bare-arsed on a sheepskin rug that my mother still has on display in the front room!

seeker - you've put into three sentences what would have taken me a whole essay! It's pictures of someone else who has probably not given their consent! And unlike the photo of the nude child on the sheepskin, which can be taken down from the mantlepiece and put out of sight when the vicar calls, pictures uploaded to the internet can't be selectively censored quite so readily or so successfully.

But similiarly if you can take the photo off the mantlepiece, you can block your photos so they can only be seen by family and friends...