International Young Naturists Organisation
Naturist Resources => Blogs, Videos, Articles about Naturism/Nudity => Topic started by: NudieDaniel on June 03, 2016, 04:40:24 am
-
By BBC Trending What's popular and why
20 May 2016
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/16226/production/_89726609_13087075_10154233751958274_4878092981182126104_o.jpg)
This photograph of a father holding his son in the shower has been shared tens of thousands of times on Facebook in the last fortnight. But over the same period it's also also been taken down by the social media platform more than once before ultimately being reinstated each time. Why?
In some ways the picture appears to show a fairly everyday scene. A dad cradling his severely sick child in his arms. Except in this instance, they are in the shower and both naked. The picture was posted on social media by the photographer Heather Whitten who lives in Arizona in the US. It shows her son Fox and her husband, the boy's father Thomas Whitten.
For many viewers the image is a touching portrait of parental care and affection. The reason that father and son were naked was because Fox had Salmonella poisoning for which he would soon after be hospitalised.
"Thomas had spent hours in the shower with him, trying to keep his fever down and letting the vomit and diarrhea rinse off of them both as it came," Whitten wrote in her post accompanying the photo.
"He was so patient and so loving and so strong with our tiny son in his lap... I stepped out and grabbed my camera and came back to snap a few images of it and, of course shared them."
But for some people the image is inappropriate at best and at worst has undertones of paedophilia. Whitten has been surprised by this reaction and was shocked when people posted negative comments about what was for her a beautiful moment.
"There is nothing sexual or exploitative about this image," she wrote in the initial post (https://www.facebook.com/heatherwhittenphotography/photos/a.10150284901268274.376605.263471138273/10154233751958274/?type=1&theater). "I was taken aback by how many people missed the story or didn't even look past the nudity to find the story."
Controversy about what images of naked children are acceptable is not new. In 1995, before the use of digital cameras was widespread, newsreader Julia Somerville and her husband were questioned by police after they took family photographs of her seven-year-old daughter to be developed at a chemists. Ms Somerville protested that the images were "innocent family photos" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-innocent-family-photos-1538516.html) and no charges were brought.
In 2001, artist Tierney Gearon's exhibition featuring photos of her naked children at the Saatchi Gallery sparked a row. She later admitted being "completely taken aback (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/mar/13/childprotection)" by the reaction to the photos which she described as "kids in masks doing a silly pose".
In photos where a child appears naked with an adult there are additional complications and there may be evidence of something of a double standard. A nude man may appear more sinister to some than a woman without clothes.
Last month, an Australian woman Kelli Bannister posted a photograph (https://www.facebook.com/thebarefootmum/photos/pb.407659642673521.-2207520000.1463571348./898795090226638/?type=3&theater) - in a similar pose to Whitten's photo - cradling her daughter Summer. It was taken by her five-year-old son on a mobile phone. The reaction to that image was overwhelmingly positive.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/20F2/production/_89743480_12993557_898795090226638_1975858644759668087_n.jpg)
Whitten told BBC Trending she has been "blown away" by the response to her image, which was actually taken in November 2014. "I wasn't prepared at all," she says. "I was very intimidated by it."
"A disgusting lack of boundaries," posted one person who was less keen on the content.
Whitten told Trending that she respects people's rights to disagree and she has never deleted a negative comment posted under the photo. "But people shouldn't be able to dictate what is right or wrong for other people," she added.
Whitten says some people also contacted her saying it triggered memories of past abuse, something she had not even considered when posting the picture.
But the majority of the comments have been positive. "All I see is a loving caring dad comforting his sick child," reads one. "This is a beautiful image," says another.
And in an online poll run by the Telegraph newspaper 94% of the more than 7,000 people who responded indicated they didn't think the photo was inappropriate.
Despite this, Whitten says the picture has been removed a number of times since being posted on Facebook at the start of May.
A spokeswoman for Facebook confirmed that the picture had been taken down in error but has been reinstated.
Whitten used the hashtag #standupstripdown which empowers photographers to take a stand against social network sites banning photos and the damage that can be done by that, especially for professionals.
Whitten is adamant that the image captures something honest and human. "For me it's just such a positive image and my hope is that it's a normalising image, normalising family nudity," she says.
Blog by Harry Low (https://twitter.com/HarryLow49)
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-36322279
-
There is nothing at all disgusting about these images. They are beautiful, tender depictions of the love of mother and father for their children. The fact that they are nude makes it all the more intimate and loving. Honestly, if you look at this and think of pedophilia...you need help, man. The only disgusting thing here is people's depraved minds.
-
The only disgusting thing here is people's depraved minds.
exactly. you hit the point!
-
There's instant suspicion in some people's minds because men supposedly can't be nurturing and comforting. I think the images of the father and son and the mother and daughter are both beautiful depictions of the purest love imaginable. I'm optimistic though, because it seems like society is trending towards breaking down these restrictive gender stereotypes.
-
The only disgusting thing here is people's depraved minds.
exactly. you hit the point!
:like
-
They are beautiful. My first thought, before reading the text, was that the child was ill and his father was holding him. It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could possibly see this as disgusting.
-
The only disgusting thing here is people's depraved minds.
exactly. you hit the point!
I agree. It's disturbing how many people's minds immediately jump to the worst possible interpretation.
-
The only disgusting thing here is people's depraved minds.
exactly. you hit the point!
I agree. It's disturbing how many people's minds immediately jump to the worst possible interpretation.
Quite! Makes one wonder about their mental state.
-
problem is we live in this modern paranoid society, we can maybe thank the media for that?
-
Not at all disgusting. What nudist parent wouldn't cuddle their kids nude or clothed ?
-
problem is we live in this modern paranoid society, we can maybe thank the media for that?
sad truth!
-
After reading the first initial part of the story, I think it's an awesome thing the Dad was loving enough to sit in the shower with his sick son. Who would want to be cleaning all that mess like crazy or having to take a bath every few minutes?
But what really makes me mad is the image people bring to it. People are completely fine with mother holding daughter while both are nude but not boy and father? But the people's image is that men can't be caring and loving. That all guys are going to have inappropriate relationships with their children but women won't? Hell, I wouldn't see a problem with it if that was his daughter instead of son. Props for a good father there.
-
I don't see how that's disgusting. He's just being a good Dad and caring for his son. Same as the mother and daughter. People are making a big deal over nothing.
-
I'm not bothered by this at all. Am I really missing something?
-
personally, I am bothered by it... that is one hairy dude he's going to have plumbing problems unless he has one of those guard thingamajiggers over the drain hole
-
personally, I am bothered by it... that is one hairy dude he's going to have plumbing problems unless he has one of those guard thingamajiggers over the drain hole
To be fair, would be his plumbing problems, not yours, so shouldn't be bothered :p
-
we are all gods children DrgHybrid... that plumbing belongs to us all
-
Then all needs to come fix my plumbing so my tub will quick leaking. :p And I was casually joking on the last post. So hard to express emotions online through just words.
-
They are beautiful pictures showing a parents undying tender love for their sick children or their children in general.
-
I would also join the majority opinion here: for me, those pictures are not disgusting, quite the opposite. They are caring and lovely. Pedophilia is a serious disaese, and it can happen in a non-nudist environment too.
-
100% beautiful! That's easy!
-
:like
I think this is a lovely photo of a loving and worried father, with his son being Ill and who wouldn't want to help his child if possible..
Nice article, thanks for sharing
-
There is nothing disgusting when it comes the love of one's child.
-
The pictures are beutiful.
The reactions is horrible.
-
no problem at all. we have paintings of naked children around naked adults so this shouldn't be any different. It is artistic in the father example because it relates to me on an emotional level that i intend to cradle and care for my child. if anything i feel the picture is basically saying that all is exposed and open between the parent and child. no secrets concerning life and that both have access to each other experiences and wisdom. :afro:
-
Both photos are beautiful. I really wish people would pull their minds out of the gutters they insist everyone else resides in. Both photos are beautifully and artistically done, and I see nothing wrong with them.
-
To be honest I don't really see what's wrong with it but I guess it depends on how you look at it from your own perspective .
-
The love of a parent for their child is always beautiful.
-
There's absolutely nothing wrong with these photos...
...But...
If my child was distressed, poisoned and vomiting, I would be extremely worried and very anxious. I wouldn't think, "Hey, why don't I grab my camera, take a photo and upload it onto social media? That'll be fun."
-
If my child was distressed, poisoned and vomiting, I would be extremely worried and very anxious. I wouldn't think, "Hey, why don't I grab my camera, take a photo and upload it onto social media? That'll be fun."
It often amazes me when I see what people put online, especially on social media, that I feel like there should be a 'is this really something you want to put online?' warning button.
-
They are beautiful. My first thought, before reading the text, was that the child was ill and his father was holding him. It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could possibly see this as disgusting.
Something I think people here miss is subconscious human psychology. I am an undergraduate so take what I say with a heavy grain of salt, but I am familiar with some ideas of psychology.
Humans have not been around for very long (geologically speaking) and thus our "genetic" "psychological software" is not used to the high tech world that we live in now. The mark of human civilization is the suppression of imidiate instincts, however we still have about a million plus years or so of "chimp" level genetic programming (I am taking evolutionary psychology as a given here). We should be careful how we evaluate others reactions.
I completely agree that people are looking at the worst in this picture, and that there is nothing wrong here (picturewise). Yet, the general public perception is going to default to fear and negativity in general. Fear, and other negative emotions, in this case, are the subconscious initial position.
Many of you (me included) have subconscious bias that would predispose you to having an irrational fear response [by the way, as far as media goes, this is why stories that fear/enrage get the most attention and therefore profit]. Some examples might include (but not limited to), an opposing political figure (no Hilary is not evil, and no Trump isn't either), a religion (pick an Abrahamic faith for classic examples here), unstable governments (where such a fear might be justifiable), people with different perspectives etc. in all these examples you will notice that people tend to have strong fear based reactions that usually (obviously not always) are completely irrational and most likely media driven (not that they're the bad guy either).
Tl;dr (and I'm tired and just getting up for the day) don't be too surprised if an event that any rational person would see has noncontroversial will be seen as such by the general public. The general public tends to react from the gut, one of the most primitive parts of the mind that has kept us alive till now.
-
They are beautiful. My first thought, before reading the text, was that the child was ill and his father was holding him. It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could possibly see this as disgusting.
Something I think people here miss is subconscious human psychology. I am an undergraduate so take what I say with a heavy grain of salt, but I am familiar with some ideas of psychology.
Humans have not been around for very long (geologically speaking) and thus our "genetic" "psychological software" is not used to the high tech world that we live in now. The mark of human civilization is the suppression of imidiate instincts, however we still have about a million plus years or so of "chimp" level genetic programming (I am taking evolutionary psychology as a given here). We should be careful how we evaluate others reactions.
I completely agree that people are looking at the worst in this picture, and that there is nothing wrong here (picturewise). Yet, the general public perception is going to default to fear and negativity in general. Fear, and other negative emotions, in this case, are the subconscious initial position.
Many of you (me included) have subconscious bias that would predispose you to having an irrational fear response [by the way, as far as media goes, this is why stories that fear/enrage get the most attention and therefore profit]. Some examples might include (but not limited to), an opposing political figure (no Hilary is not evil, and no Trump isn't either), a religion (pick an Abrahamic faith for classic examples here), unstable governments (where such a fear might be justifiable), people with different perspectives etc. in all these examples you will notice that people tend to have strong fear based reactions that usually (obviously not always) are completely irrational and most likely media driven (not that they're the bad guy either).
Tl;dr (and I'm tired and just getting up for the day) don't be too surprised if an event that any rational person would see has noncontroversial will be seen as such by the general public. The general public tends to react from the gut, one of the most primitive parts of the mind that has kept us alive till now.
I just read your post in Is this picture disgusting or beautiful?
I totally agree with you that people have subconscious bias and they tend to judge people and products available in market blindly .
The subconcious bias is ilustrated beautifully in THE ART OF THINKING CLEARLY by Rolf Dobelli