Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Photo of nude baby

279 replies

Sailinghappy · 29/06/2018 16:28

Genuinely interested to see if I'm being unreasonable here... what do you think?

So today my husband was playing with our baby daughter in the paddling pool having the loveliest time. She just splashes around in there nude in this heat and loves it! He took a funny photo of her playing with her duckie in the water and shared it on our family whatsapp group - with both aunties and uncles. I do think the photo is cute and I'm glad they had a lovely time playing but I'm fuming because my baby is nude in this photo and she has her legs wide open!! He way she's sitting isn't very dignified and I don't want everyone having photos of that!!!

Husband thinks it's just a funny photo shared with family - AIBU??

OP posts:
RichSheffield · 29/06/2018 16:45

A picture of a naked child should not be considered pornographic! For it to be considered pornography it would need to have been produced with the purpose of stimulating sexual excitement.

ikeepaforkinmypurse · 29/06/2018 16:46

If that's a problem for you, you shouldn't let her being nude in the first place. You have to be consistent.

Your DH didn't even share them on social media, it was a private family group. If you don't trust your own family, it's a bit of a worry. (and I am well aware that most sex abuse cases are from people you know)

What I find worrying is that kind of comment The fact is it is child pornography. He should not have sent them. In fact he should not have taken them. WTF are posters like this thinking!

Pengggwn · 29/06/2018 16:47

I don't believe naked images of a baby can be described as "child pornography". The legal term is "indecent image" but surely there is nothing indecent about a naked child?

ThroughThickAndThin01 · 29/06/2018 16:47

I’m mixed about this.

On one hand calling it pornography is sick. It’s a photo a dad took of a baby dd.

But I probably wouldn’t take a photo like that. It’ll be embarrassing for her when she’s older.

Myotherusernameisbest · 29/06/2018 16:48

YABU in that it is a picture of a baby and totally innocent and lovely. YANBU because these days with digital technology it could end up somewhere no quite so innocent. Depending who is on that group or who sends it to someone else, it could end up anywhere in this digital age. Its a sad state of affairs when this crosses your mind over an innocent snap, but thats the world we live in.

Soubriquet · 29/06/2018 16:48

I see where you're coming from.

I tend to let my two play in the nude but any photos I share on my private fb, I make sure there definitely is no privates showing.

It's still obvious they are nude, but no bits can be seen.

I think as the photos are being showed to family, it's not too bad.

Greenday49 · 29/06/2018 16:48

Child pornography?!? Awful term anyway but a naked photo of a baby (or anyone unless in certain context!) Isn't pornographic! I wouldn't have shared such a photo to be honest. Just in case, I mean a lot of electronic sharing platforms aren't as private as we'd like to think BUT, it isn't so bad. She's a baby , babies don't have to be dignified (or at least it's news to most babies I've met)!

KappaKappa · 29/06/2018 16:50

The fact is it is child pornography. He should not have sent them. In fact he should not have taken them
WTAF!
Whether OP’s dp was unreasonable or not, this comment is batshit and worrying

ikeepaforkinmypurse · 29/06/2018 16:50

It’ll be embarrassing for her when she’s older.
I honestly do not know anyone who is remotely embarrassed by their baby photos. Teenage pics can be, but baby? What can be remotely embarrassing there? Seeing something sexual in it is just sick.

bringincrazyback · 29/06/2018 16:50

Just because she's a baby doesn't mean it's okay to share pictures with people showing her vagina.

This.

DianaPrincessOfThemyscira · 29/06/2018 16:50

It is not child porn, or what you should refer to as indecent images of a child. It is a naked child.

I personally wouldn’t share those pics with people but I don’t think there is anything indecent or immodest or undignified about a child’s body.

Olinguito · 29/06/2018 16:51

YANBU. The pictures will be there forever, and when she's a bit older she might be really unhappy that they were shared. It's different from being seen playing in the nude, as this is a permanent copy.

Laiste · 29/06/2018 16:52

I think it's perfectly possible to tread the a fine line between modest nude photos of a baby and legs akimbo/arse in the air nude shots of a baby.

I've got pics of my 4 DDs naked as little ones. They're lovely. But there's none with more than just a bit of buttock or a lovely tummy showing.

So, YANBU IMO OP.

slithytove · 29/06/2018 16:52

Nude I wouldn’t have an issue with but legs akimbo I just wouldn’t be happy seeing and therefore wouldn’t share - it’s not particularly attractive for a start!

matchingpjs · 29/06/2018 16:53

I would maybe, just maybe take a photo of my own naked child. I would certainly not share it with anyone but the child's other parent. Why would a parent think anyone else ( family or not) should be sent ( or is the slightest bit interested in seeing) a photo of a child showing it's genitals? I know I don't want to see photos of other peoples children naked

PeppermintPasty · 29/06/2018 16:53

I can't get worked up about this, I have posted naked pics of my children from time to time, on a beach, at a distance, etc etc.

Child 'porn', utterly batshit.

Notlivestock · 29/06/2018 16:53

I think you are being a bit unreasonable. Naked babies aren't inappropriate or salacious, and the picture was only shared with family. Are you concerned that your family members would be abusive or inappropriate?

The fact is it is child pornography. He should not have sent them. In fact he should not have taken them.

This is insane bullshit. There is no such thing as child pornography. Pornography implies agency and consent. 'Child pornography' = photographs of child sex abuse. That is very clearly not what is happening here. There is nothing pornographic about a naked baby, or about parents photographing their naked baby playing in a pool. Sexual abuse is not occurring here and you are wildly off the mark to suggest it is.

slithytove · 29/06/2018 16:55

Like this photo (google searched not mine)

You just would not want that sans nappy

Photo of nude baby
ADastardlyThing · 29/06/2018 16:56

Wonder what the likelihood is of WhatsApp still going in 18 years? Or uncle knobhead saying "oh hang on, let me log in to iCloud v 100000, there's a cracking pic of you from 18 years ago playing in a paddling pool......."

ThroughThickAndThin01 · 29/06/2018 16:56

ikeepaforkinmypurse well I’d be embarrassed about nude baby photos of me with my legs spread apart.

Brunsdon1 · 29/06/2018 16:56

Terming it child pornography says more about the poster who said it...sexualisimg normal child behaviour in that way is far more concerning than an innocent picture....its not my personal choice but don't term it child pornography or you do a massive disservice to those who have had to go through that horror

slithytove · 29/06/2018 16:57

This one prob a better example

Photo of nude baby
PickwickThePlockingDodo · 29/06/2018 16:59

The fact is it is child pornography. He should not have sent them. In fact he should not have taken them.

What the hell?!! Are you ok?

JennieLee · 29/06/2018 17:00

I do not think it is possible to take a photograph of a baby's vagina - as opposed to the external genital area.

HoneyBadgerApparently · 29/06/2018 17:02

I meant legally. Will explain...