To think that you shouldn't put naked pictures of your kids on Facebook

[coralpig]

I'm Facebook friends with a mother (we don't know each other in real life but our kids share an activity).
She has 3 kids of primary school age and has put up lots of photos of them completely nude with the way they are positioned obscuring their private parts. The children look really really smiley and relaxed in the photo and I think it's totally fine for them to enjoy being naked around each other. However I do think that it's massively inappropriate and quite unsafe to put these on Facebook. Mother in question has a private profile but hundreds of fb friends. What do you think? Is it my place to send her a message saying I think she should them down for the safety of the children? WWYD?

No no no! It refers to topless girls. So a topless photo of any of my 5 year olds' male schoolmates is fine, but not the girls? At 5 they look no different.

That site is dangerous if you can't see its purpose.

sighs

I can see its purpose. I get it. But I can also understand how a Daily Mail writer someone could take the bare bones of the law as it stands and interpret it to mean that 'owning naked pictures of your own children is illegal' (I assume it's never been tested in such a context - largely because that would be insane).

You asked for a link. I found you one. I don't agree with the hysteria.

Once a photo is posted online you have given up all rights to that image, privacy settings or not.

Would you make flyers of pictures of your kids naked and distribute them to hundreds of homes?
Would you publish the picture in the local paper?

Social media is no different, you are potentially sharing with more people than you are aware of and you ultimately have no control over what they do with that image.

("Whether any photograph of a child is indecent is for the jury or magistrate or District Judge to decide based on what is the recognised standard of propriety. R v Stamford [1972] 2 Q.B. 391. The circumstances and motive of the defendant are not relevant to the question of indecency...")

People are seriously fucked up if they think it is ok to post naked photos of children online. It is Facebook - it is online, Facebook is not as private as people think it is. There for people to share or screenshot etc. All readily available for paedophiles to get their hands on. Those who see nothing wrong with posting these photos up - how would you feel as someone else previously posted, if a police officer arrived at your door and told you that your child's photo had been found on the computer of a paedophile? I imagine you'd be pretty distraught.

I believe I've already answered that.

I wonder why people who think it is outrageous to post naked pictures of children online don't have such a problem with clothed pictures of kids? Given that, as we have already established, there is nothing intrinsically indecent or sexual about a child's nudity - then surely all the other arguments (falling into the wrong hands/potential material for bullies/lack of consent/lack of privacy) apply equally to any picture of an infant or child?

I know that plenty of families are entirely consistent in their approach to children and social media, operating a zero tolerance policy before their offspring reach a reasonable age of consent.

But is everyone squeaking in outrage on this thread similarly vigilant?

I post very few pictures of my children online and only ever with their permission.

Multivac - I don't post any pics of DC online and I have told friends and family no online pics either. They all respect that.

Two down...

Given that, as we have already established, there is nothing intrinsically indecent or sexual about a child's nudity

A paedophile would not agree.

A paedophile thinks there is something intrinsically sexual about a child whether clothed or otherwise.

I don't need the objects of my sexual desire to be naked in order to be turned on by them. Indeed, clothing can often make an image more titillating.

Jesus.

So you really don't think that naked pictures would be any more interesting or worthy of sharing to a paedophile, than a clothed one?

Really?

Janecc do you honestly think that an employer would decide not to hire someone because their mum had posted a photo of them playing in the nude on Facebook twenty years previously?

'A paedophile would not agree.'

No, I am sure they wouldn't. But I don't want the way I relate to children to be influenced by the fucked up thinking of paedophiles.

I accept it's not easy - my gut reaction was to agree with the OP, that the photos should be taken down. But isn't that in some way colluding with the sexualisation of children? I think it's important to insist that children's bodies are not sexual objects. Otherwise we are allowing the way we see our children to be governed by a paedophilic paradigm, and I find that very disturbing.

Something doesn't have to be sexual to be inappropriate.

So you really don't think that naked pictures would be any more interesting or worthy of sharing to a paedophile, than a clothed one?

Does it matter which is more interesting, as long as both types are interesting? Hence my enquiry as to whether the outraged parents share any pictures of their children online. Or not.

It's just another AIBU example of Facebook shit. There'll be another one along in a few minutes.

Just ignore it, or leave FB and come back to real life.

Those who are determined to post naked pictures of their children online - why? What do you get out of it? For what reason do you do it?

Genuine question.

I post pictures of our children online for all kinds of reasons - but on the whole, it's to share moments of their lives with friends and families who don't see them in the flesh as often as all of us would like.

The word 'naked' is redundant in your question, as far as I'm concerned.

I have an absolutely gorgeous picture of my daughter, aged around 3, naked in the garden watering the plants. I was behind her, so all you see is her long hair down her back and her bottom, and the hose pipe she's using to water the garden. The sun was going to set shortly so the light is golden.

It sums up the moment, that summer, that period of time. You can't see her face but you can tell she's having a whale of a time.

There's nothing sexual about it. It epitomises the freedom of childhood to me. I shared it with family members that would appreciate it for what it was.

Perhaps I should have it made into a huge canvas and give the neighbour's something to talk about.

Don't know where that erroneous apostrophe came from.

We're fortunately past the age of nappies, but if the police had raided our house a few years ago, they would have found images of naked and semi-naked babies all over the place. The horror.

Hate to be the voice of doom and gloom but these pictures are commonly traded and even sold by paedophiles. Anyone can download and save, or scrrenshot, a picture from a friends Facebook.

^This is my initial reaction.

I was at the park one day and saw a girl who I would guess was upper primary school age wearing a summer school dress with no pants on. She was going up and down slides, legs akimbo and I was really worried for her for this reason.