I think it might be the clinical word vagina vs wee wee, but vajayjay still would be weird in this context. Honestly, dont show strangers your kids genitals.
Eh. I have plenty of pictures of my daughter naked as a baby. The weird part of this is showing off the naked picture to a stranger on the bus and making mention of the genitals in specific.
Anyway, everyone knows that naked baby pictures are used to torture children in front of their serious romantic partners brought home for the first time. This has not happened in my 14-year-old daughter's life yet, but I hope to one day have this privilege that comes with parenting.
Yep, my wife has seen my little baby wiener. The awkward teenage pictures were far more embarrassing though. Hers are buried in a hoarder house so I might never get to see her embarrassing school band photos.
Dude, this has been a traditional way for parents to embarrass their adult children in front of their partner for decades. My wife has seen my naked baby pictures without my parents even showing them to her. And I've seen hers. What's the big deal? It's not like either of us found them sexy.
They're baby pictures. We're not talking about something erotic here. Naked babies are not some sort of scandalous thing. In most cultures, they're normal.
We're not talking about social media, we're talking about the significant other of my child. Or even relatives. I didn't get my daughter's permission to take her photo when she was a baby, so I shouldn't have sent a photo to my father on the other side of the country based on this reasoning.
used to torture children in front of their serious romantic partners brought home for the first time.
Things were different when we were kids. It's a fucked up thing to psychologically abuse your (presumably) teenage kids like that and objectively people know that. (Your daughters) consent in the subject is the only thing that matters. The only reason anyone is giving you a pass is because you're FlyingSquid, but maybe leave those pictures in the closet until closer to the wedding.
Oh please. It's not psychological abuse. It's "torture" the same way telling the story about the time they told a lady in the checkout line, "I came out of my mommy's bagina!" when they were three to an adult child's partner is torture.
You show me an example of anyone suffering PTSD because their parents showed their partner baby pictures.
Yeah saving it for their long term partners (if you have to) is probably a better idea than showing them during the first meeting.
And please don't dismiss other peoples trauma because you didn't experience it personally, childhood trauma takes many different forms, some we're only just becoming aware of.
I didn't dismiss anyone's trauma, I'm asking if that has ever resulted in anyone's trauma, a parent showing their adult child's partner a picture of them naked as a baby.
I mean if nothing else, not as a "torture," showing the partner the first couple of pictures of the kid as a baby should be acceptable to people just as a "this is what they looked like when it all began" and they don't come out with clothes on. They also are unable to understand the concept of consent, let alone give it.
I would also suggest that if that did cause someone trauma, it would be because the parent was aware this sort of thing would upset their child to that level and did it anyway. I think most parents wouldn't actually show the pictures if they knew it would cause the child real psychological pain, because that isn't the point in doing it. It's usually a form of good-natured ribbing, not malicious.
I didn’t dismiss anyone’s trauma, I’m asking if that has ever resulted in anyone’s trauma
How can I speak for every person? Has it caused someones trauma? Yeah I bet it has. You initially made it sound like you were showing bath pics to every teen-aged first date that came over which would obviously be pretty fucked up.
showing the partner the first couple of pictures of the kid as a baby should be acceptable to people just as a “this is what they looked like when it all began"
Yeah we agree, baby pics are fun, I especially like noting family resemblances as everyone ages. My sister made my mom a big set of scrapbooks/albums for each of her kids one year, no naked baby pics were included. They're great fun to look at, highly recommend.
They also are unable to understand the concept of consent, let alone give it.
This is the primary issue, without even going into the obvious power dynamic between child and parent when it comes to consent later. Where do a childs rights end and parents begin?
I would also suggest that if that did cause someone trauma, it would be because the parent was aware this sort of thing would upset their child to that level and did it anyway.
I would suggest that most parents think they're doing great doing it just like it's always been done (i.e. generational trauma) and "they turned out just fine." but there are definitely some intentionally abusive ones too. The child with the intentionally abusive parent is obviously going to have way more trauma.
I think most parents wouldn’t actually show the pictures if they knew it would cause the child real psychological pain, because that isn’t the point in doing it.
The "real psychological pain" part makes it look like you're dismissing trauma, just because it's not something you experienced doesn't mean it isn't valid and while intent matters so does the result. I'm sure you specifically are a good parent and you're very conscious of your kids mental headspace but by default I'd say save it for the fiance if you just have to have them.
This is the primary issue, without even going into the obvious power dynamic between child and parent when it comes to consent later. Where do a childs rights end and parents begin?
Again, if we argue that children have to consent to get their photo taken, no one should take any photos of their children below the age where they can do that. That means no baby pictures at all.
The “real psychological pain” part makes it look like you’re dismissing trauma
You have no evidence of this trauma. You're just guessing.
Spoken like someone who's never been in therapy or studied psychology, people bet and guess and infer stuff all the time; it's a "soft" science for a reason.
That means no baby pictures at all.
Specifically pictures of their genitals, I feel like no baby genital pics is a good default, yes, what a weird hill to die on.
You have no evidence of this trauma.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
You're just guessing.
Guessing, inferring, surmising, call it whatever helps you sleep at night. I think of it as erring on the side of safety and respect for my kids. Not having pics of their junk doesn't make my life any worse, there's only downsides for them.
You show me an example of anyone suffering PTSD because their parents showed their partner baby pictures.
i literally provided myself as an example in this, i quite literally said that i would consider it a violation of privacy, and no that's not PTSD, but PTSD is the extreme end of things here. We aren't just talking about PTSD.
You claiming that it would give you PTSD is not evidence that anyone has suffered or is suffering from PTSD because of it. That's just you making an assumption about a situation you've apparently never actually faced.
It's amazing that you got this far into the conversation and, despite my repeated mention of a daughter, you think my baby had testicles. And I never suggested she was anything but cisgendered, so I'm really not sure how you missed that. But based on the rest of your silly question, I have a few guesses.
That's a tradition that ended a long time ago. I'm talking about traditions that are ongoing. Also traditions that, despite someone else's claim, probably don't cause any psychological harm, at least most of the time.
I think you may be surprised and hopefully disturbed by this UNICEF article.
Despite a steady decline in this harmful practice over the past decade, child marriage remains widespread, with approximately one in five girls married in childhood across the globe. Today, multiple crises – including conflict, climate shocks and the ongoing fallout from COVID-19 – are threatening to reverse progress towards eliminating this human rights violation. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals call for global action to end child marriage by 2030.
So no, it was not "a long time ago." It's "hopefully by 2030."
Also traditions that, despite someone else's claim, probably don't cause any psychological harm, at least most of the time.
Oh, so as long as you don't believe the person and can therefore invalidate their feelings without guilt, and it only psychologically hurts "some" people who you I suppose arbitrarily believe over the ones you don't, it's fine?
I feel.like we generally give women a pass on A LOT of weird behaviors about children.
That does include elevated attention to the genital area (seriously, why? Leave our genitals alone ffs), borderline fetishizing breastfeeding, and also a lot of other stuff.
Like, for example, I had several women independently telling me how baby feces smell nice and milky. Like, what the hell and why do y'all feel it's appropriate for a casual conversation???
Or that they love to smell baby feet. Huh? Funny thing I first got those stories after seeing a TV ad (was a while ago) with a woman burying her face in baby feet.
I can only assume this is either a result of hormonal shifts throughout pregnancy, or that there's plenty more female pedophiles than we knew.
It's an illustrative comment though. Our society teaches us not to view women as predatory, and to always view men as such - so that creates the difference between a woman talking about baby anatomy and a man talking about baby anatomy.
People are too weird about genitals. Our culture finds it so uncomfortable to talk to their sons about cleaning their penis that we started cutting the foreskin off to spare them the embarrassment.
This doesn't make it justifiable, but circumcision goes back a lot longer than our culture has existed. If Judaism had won out instead of Christianity, it could have been even more widespread than it is now. Some Muslim sects also mandate circumcision, and they could be the ones ruling the world.
Unfortunately, circumcision is a particular form of mutilation that transcends cultures.
Unfortunately, circumcision is a particular form of mutilation that transcends cultures.
a lot of mutilation goes back centuries for human history. You can pick up any variety of mutiliation and it's been done, scarrification, penile subincisions, foot binding, skull stretching, i can keep going.
Just because it's historically common and pervasive doesn't mean we should consider it to be normal. The aztecs commited human sacrifice, and we think capital punishment is bad enough that we need to hide it away from the general public and make it "sterile" which in reality means using a completely botched medical injection process.
also what culture "should be" does not determine what it is now, i'm not sure the legality of naked baby photos to begin with tbh, i'm pretty sure they're still considered to be CP, unless legally stated otherwise somewhere. They wouldn't count as CSAM i think, since there's not abuse going on, but arguably it might count as CP still.
Depends where in the world you are. In the US it was popularized by Dr Kellogg to curb masturbation. He also recommended a few drops of carbolic acid applied to young girls clits to damage the nerves and avoid what he called "abnormal excitement".
Dude was opposed to pretty much anything even vaguely resembling pleasure, he invented corn flakes as a food to be as bland and tasteless as possible. The only reason they ever became a popular breakfast cereal is because of his brother adding sugar to them despite Kelloggs objections
'cleanliness' and 'looking like their father' were later justifications after the practice had already gained traction.
About smell :
"In 2021, inhalation of hexadecanal was found to reduce aggression in men but to trigger aggression in women.[4] Hexadecanal is one of the most abundant substances emitted by human babies from their heads, which may be an evolutionary survival mechanism to induce mothers to defend the baby and fathers to not attack it. But it is not yet known whether the amount of hexadecanal emitted by humans is sufficient to affect other humans." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecanal
Having had four kids, if you are showing people pictures of any baby in the bath naked, they're gonna be upset no matter the gender. I don't think his is true at all.
You guys want to consider gender in vacuum but it is never a good idea.
Look at the sexualisation and brainwashing of the girls and patriarchy and men having this big power gap and sometimes using it in the most monstrous of the ways even today let alone 100 years ago. This is why the second image is big wtf while the first is small wtf.
That’s because in the first no one would immediately think that they sexualise the boy while in the second we arrive at this conclusion immediately and without hesitation thanks to all the hard work of men thorought history.
I know having this original sin of your fathers on your shoulders is not a cool feeling but this is the reality we are in.
The sooner this collective PTSD heals and that can only happen after some time of treating women as humans, the better for everyone. Problem is that point in history is far, far away considering the core issue is still prevalent.
It will take another 100 years of intense education and raising new generations to have the society that isn’t obviously fucked up and deeply hurt.
No one in the picture or the audience is sexualizing little girls (or boys). Instead, the outrage is caused by harmful expectations of purity that are imposed on girls and women, but not boys. As well as the current moral panic about pedophilia, which again is unhelpful in actuality protecting children.
Want to protect help children from predators? Help them remove the stigma around their bodies and sex, and empower them to speak and be heard when something they don’t like happens. Failing to do so reinforces the feelings of shame that all too often enable predators to get away with what they do.
And maybe also don’t share potentially embarrassing photos without consent but that’s small potatoes compared to the above issues.
Help them remove the stigma around their bodies and sex, and empower them to speak and be heard when something they don’t like happens.
This. So much this. If auntie wants to give them a kiss and they don't want to get slobbered then tough fucking luck auntie, I'll back the little shits up when they bite you. Predators are, by and large, able to do what they do because people don't teach kids that they do, in fact, have bodily autonomy.
And while I'm at it bodily autonomy of kids also implies that parents don't parade photos around like some fucking trophy or something. Have some basic fucking regard for your own kids and what they want. How would you feel when they're showing nude pictures of you to their classmates yeah I thought so.
tl;dr "Misandry is perfectly fine because men are evil and nothing a woman has ever done is wrong."
The problem isn't that the bottom scenario isn't accepted, it's that the top scenario is. No one should be showing off nudes of children in public, or anywhere really, regardless of gender. It's weird, it's sick, and it has no place in this world.
If you're taking photos on a nude beach in Europe you're getting decked. Kid, adult, doesn't matter.
There's a massive fucking difference between sitting naked in a sauna with other naked people and sitting on public transit, fully dressed, gossiping about non-consensual nudes of children. How is that even a question. How are you capable of equating those things.
Except the comic doesn’t show them discussing or showing a naked body, it’s a weirdo pointing out the genitals to another person in a very public place. If it was toes, it’d be fine. If it was just a naked body it’d be whatever, mostly. But they’re specifically pointing out genitals, that implies sexual focus. It’s only “cute” and “funny” for the old women here because eventually it’ll be an organ used for sex…
Nah, it should never be acceptable to show photos of people naked to your friends without their express permission. Outside of medical professionals of course.
In fact, collective trauma can impact relationships, alter policies and governmental processes, alter the way the society functions, and even change its social norms (Chang, 2017; Hirschberger, 2018; Saul, 2014)
Maybe we should encourage suicides in boys starting in schools, would that work for you?
Edit: if you are going to down vote me the offer an idea the left will actually do. Otherwise I guess we are bringing up more republican rapists.
'50% of the world population would feel safer if you died' is the messaging the left offers so lean I to it or change the messaging
Situation also matters. This appears to be on a bus and between acquaintances. Do this same thing at home toward the adult child's significant other and it becomes a funny thing parents do to embarrass their kids.
Dark Arc is saying that it is generally considered a bad thing, contrary to the comic which is implying that it is generally considered good or neutral when it should be considered bad.
you guys missed the point. neither should be bad. it's only bad because of how we sexualize eveything. it's the sexualization that's bad, and honestly, that wouldn't even be that bad if it weren't for the patriarchal exploitation of sex.
I haven’t been able to peg Lemmy down even after a year and this thread hasn’t helped. Lemmy is pro-freedom, acceptance, and FOSS, is literal to the point of absurdity, has a selectively activated superiority complex, and averages ~17 years old. Knowing all of that, I’m still endlessly befuddled. Any chance you’ve got the last puzzle piece?
Stop sharing any photos of people who don't give consent, whether they can or not.
In an alternate timeline where we never had the stigma around nudity, I'd be just as embarrassed of my nose in a photo than I would of my penis.
Or maybe 10 years after I cut ties with you because you became a massive douche sandwich, I don't want my picture on the same Facebook wall as your white pride rally.
I think krippix’ point (as well as the comic’s point) is that the first is socially acceptable while the second is not. And that then suggests that the first scenario should also not be socially acceptable.
I don't think it really takes a side ... just kind of points out that it's super weird that it's more socially acceptable in one direction than the other.
I do hope the author intended for what I said to be the point though.
I get a chuckle about Ultra sound images as well. It's fine if a woman wants to post those photos of her insides on the Internet. But I'm the bad guy if I say "Jessica pop that pussy open let's see it in person."
Ackchyually... that's completely wrong. Frighteningly so, I might add, where has basic education gone.
Ultrasound are mechanical waves, light is EM radiation. Really slow light is infrared. Really fast ultrasound is... even more ultra ultrasound. Slower ultrasound would be this.
This is my first thread I’m reading on Lemmy today and it’s full of AKSHUALLY people, and people who don’t understand basic humanity and society. I’m hoping it’s just limited to this thread.
His issue was phrasing. The woman used a euphemism which significantly shifted her perceived intentions. “Look at his little wee-wee” is far removed from “look at his little penis.” Synonyms are not created equal, so simply substituting without considering connotation will only cause confusion. He should have said “get an eyeful of her little vagina.”
