This is totally off-topic, but have you seen the photo that appears on the front page of the Home section in today’s New York Times? Look at it closely, and then consider that it runs over a story asking the slightly titillating question of whether letting kids run around nude is OK. It made me wonder where the heck their editor was, and what on earth he was smoking!
Personally, I don’t think letting your kids trot around the house or the fully fenced backyard in the altogether is some sort of moral issue. Nudity isn’t especially objectionable in my book, and nudity among small children is benign enough. But… I think we have to consider the context of the society in which we live.
First, many Americans do consider a state of undress to be some sort of moral issue, and they are abhorred at the very thought of nude three-year-olds running rampant across the landscape. We may consider that to be their problem. But really: civil people don’t go around offending other people’s sensibilities on purpose. It’s common courtesy to teach your children to dress modestly in public and before guests.
Second, and more to the point: we live in a culture that is inundated with sexual imagery, much of it quite violent. We know that a surprising number of adults—women as well as men—develop unhealthy cravings for small children, and that quite a few will act on these cravings. Teaching the kiddies some modesty is, alas, the better part of valor.
To my eye, the Times‘s photo is pretty sexualized. Am I crazy? Note the position of the little boy’s hand vis-à-vis the thigh of the man standing near him, and the handsomely exposed legs of the woman in the foreground. Maybe I’m nuts…but IMHO the Times‘s Home editor should have exercised a little discretion.
Whaddaya think? Nuts or prissy?
More than anything, the latter point resonates with me. Perhaps it’s because my mother was very very protective and cautious during my childhood, but it seems to me that displaying the image of a nude child online is not a good idea. But I always err on the side of caution when it comes to that sort of thing. You simply can’t control where the image goes or what it inspires. (ew.)
In my opinion the photos aren’t the least bit sexual. My mind just doesn’t make the connection between “child” and “sexual”, so the line that would need to be crossed would have to be a bit further away than yours, and a bit more deliberate.
On the subject of children and nudity, I think that whatever you want to teach your children and allow them to express about nudity (sans sexuality) is fine, as long as it’s behind closed doors, or in your own yard out of public view (diaper and swimsuit changes of preschoolers notwithstanding). Part of the responsibility of parenthood is to protect your children, and it’s naive to think that just because neighbors, passersby , predators and internet searchers are wrong to see your child sexually that they won’t. It is therefore in my opinion irresponsible to put your children at unreasonable risk by allowing your children to be “unsafely” naked in public or online.
Also, it is the responsibility of the host of guests to make them comfortable, so if a guest is discomfited by a child’s prolonged nudity my opinion is that the host should clothe the child, without making a big deal out of it.
@ Revanche & Shoot: Welll…i just don’t know. Possibly I’ve read too many Freudian and postmodern literary exegeses. Still, as an editor I’d think twice or thrice about publishing that photo, and I’m certainly not comfortable about seeing it on the Internet. But on the other hand, it’s not like the paper published the kid’s address.
Still, to my mind a serious issue here is that some people do regard small children sexually. Whether or not this particular child was put at risk (although again: we don’t know who might have recognized the child and what might have been on their minds…), my point is that this sort of thing puts all young children at risk, because of its potential to stimulate unhealthy urges. Somewhere out there, at any given time, there’s some wretch who will act on such an urge.
I do hear you, Funny. But remember that someone somewhere sexualizes carrots, broccoli, bolts, rose thorns… the choice to sexualize or not sexualize is always going to be in the eyes of the beholder. I still don’t think these are sexual photos, and they were not published in nonchalance – they were published specifically to generate debate about this issue. If I were editor I would likely have chosen a less explicit shot, but perhaps that’s why I’m not a news editor.
And to address your concern about the child’s hand’s proximity to the man’s thigh and the exposed woman’s leg…well, let’s just say that on that point you are definitely showing a wee bit too much attention to postmodern literary exegeses. 🙂 All I saw was a candid shot.
Then again, perhaps I haven’t read enough postmodern literary exegeses.
Broccoli? {hee hee hee!} Not to say {wink wink!}