This is off topic.
But PLEASE never again connect shaved pubic hair with peadophiles. If someone makes such a link in his/her mind then that says more about him/her than about two consenting *adults* enjoying each others company.
Hi. I have not logged on for a couple of days. First of all I do not believe what I said was off topic, other than when taken out of context of the rest of my post.
My post was also quite clearly in defence of children.
My post was critical of the way some members of the public (and indeed the media) are concentrating hostility and blame for exploitation of children primarily on amateur photographers, rather than taking a broader and questioning overview of the course our society is currently taking in relation to childhood images and how children are perceived.
I think people who are hostile to amateur photographers should perhaps stand back and also start asking some very serious questions about how pre pubescent and young children are projected in the media and other places today, rather than focusing the majority of hostility on the 'dirty old man with a camera'. I think the problem is broader than just photography - but by default must include photography - as cultural media and advertising are very image based.
As I said in my previous (and apparently contentious) post there is the example of 'reputable' companies using implied sexuality of children as advertising material within their stores. Personally I think M&S overstepped the mark a few times this year with the posters on display in their childrens sections - posed identically as adults with wind machines blowing their hair in the same sort of way that 20 year olds are often portrayed when the intention is for the 20 year olds to look sexy. Its difficult as children have a transition period of growing up. But if shops and the media portray them as sexual at a point when they are clearly not all that close to adulthood, it is bound to have an effect on how members of the public perceive children in a sexual context. It sexualises children, with such images creeping insidiously into mainstream acceptability. It is so often said there would be less anorexia with less media using ultra thin models - would there be less harassment of children if they were not portrayed or marketed to as if they were or should be 'desirable' in adult ways? Its no good marking it all down to the amateur photographer with a camera as the ultimate or only scape goat of the sexualisation and exploitation of children - it is a significant issue, but its wider than that alone. I think it important to look at the whole context of modern portrayal of children in our society, if children are to be adequately protected and yet not kept in cotton wool either.
Images are specified by advertising companies and by the firms that commission them - but people see the images and blame the direction photography is going in, if indeed they even notice the increasing sexualisation of children as a normal day to day occurance - hence my citing the apparent acceptability of padded starter bras for very young girls. Why does a 9-14 year old need a padded bra? Why are they being marketed as appropriate wear? Its not just bras either, much of very young girls clothing (and it is primarily young girls in this specific context) is very adult in appearance. It is rediculous to say that some more recent choices in broader society have no impact on how young children are viewed or portrayed by the small section who are predatory adults. Sadly, pre-pubescent as something to be sexually desired is being more and more widely promoted - hence my also pointing out that adult women attempting to create pre-pubescent looking bodies by shaving is adding to the view that 'underage' is physically desireable and acceptably so and it is being promoted to men as the sought for look in magazines etc. Womens magazines also urge women to look ever younger in every aspect in order to remain attractive to men. How are children growing up in such a culture to view themselves? Who do the adults expect them to be?
So Charlotte, given that you appear to be the Moderator of this forum and have declared my previous post to be 'off topic', I put forward in my defence that my views on how our society and its media develop and the consequent effects on photographers/photography and children/parents are not off topic in any way, but are a broader overview of issues relevant to the subject of this post - the consequence of modern social issues on photographers rights and hobbies.
You may not agree with my personal concerns and conclusions on this subject but that does not make my views either irrelevent or inappropriate. I continue to believe that the move towards adult women emulating under-age girls is potentially detrimental to the welfare of under-age girls and indeed to adult women due to the changes in male expectations. However my post was about other several other aspects of the situation in addition to this strand of my personal views. You are welcome to disagree and debate on the several issues I raised, as is anyone including myself - even if you dont like that being the case - but dont try to present me as a pervert with a dirty mind just because my conclusions are not in agreement with your own. My post was considerate and protective of children and their development into adulthood and yet you try to insult me. If you are at university you should have the ability to debate adequately without resorting to low personal insults, inappropriately domineering attitudes on forums or by taking a statement totally from its full context.
