Photos of breastfeeding children are child pornography?
I just stumbled over this case and it knocked me out cold (I know, it's about half a year old, but it is so fvcking unbelievable):
Link
Link
Apart from the obvious idiocy this exposes, it raises some uncomfortable questions about what the ideology of child abuse has done to the way our societies look at the relationship between parents and children. Don't get me wrong, acual child abuse is a nightmare, no doubt. It seems to me, that the ideology of ever-present sexual abuse lurking in even the most natural acts has done more harm than good.
The unholy alliance between extreme feminists, christian fundies and extreme conservatives is threatening to intrude even the most private relationship there is - between mother, father and child. It has acutally succeeded to equate nudeness with sexuality, made breast into an exclusively sexual stimulus and eliminated any non-sexual sensual interpretation.
What will come next? Parents walking naked in front of their children go to jail (indecent exposure? sexual abuse?)? Photos of your nude offspring a criminal offence? If pornography is the depiction of a sexual act, is breastfeeding bordering to actual sexual abuse?
Why are we so hateful of our naked bodies that we put a "sleazy" sticker on photos taken of them?
And what has happened to the "innocent until proven guilty"-idea in this case? Why have the parents to prove they are not lying to get their kids back?
Quote:
Never did Jacqueline Mercado imagine that four rolls of film dropped off at an Eckerd Drugs one-hour photo lab near her home would turn her life inside out, threaten to send her to jail and prompt the state to take away her kids.
[...]
In one--the photo that would threaten to send Mercado and her boyfriend to prison--the infant Rodrigo is suckling her left breast.
[...]
To Richardson police, who arrived at the store that afternoon and apparently made up their minds from the content of the pictures alone, this was nothing short of a felony case of child pornography. "We thought they contained sexuality," says Sergeant Danny Martin, a Richardson police spokesman.
With nothing else to support their contention that the photos were related to sex or sexual gratification, the police and the Dallas County District Attorney's Office presented the photos to a grand jury in January and came away with indictments against Mercado and Fernandez for "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The charges centered on a single photo, the breast-feeding shot.
[...]
On November 13, the day Richardson police "tossed" or searched Mercado's house, a caseworker with the Dallas County Child Protective Services Unit of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services took custody of the children and recommended to a family judge that they be placed in a foster home.
[...]
In its latest legal filing, the state said it would not consent to releasing the boys until the couple jumps through more hoops, including a lie-detector test they must take at their own expense.
Never did Jacqueline Mercado imagine that four rolls of film dropped off at an Eckerd Drugs one-hour photo lab near her home would turn her life inside out, threaten to send her to jail and prompt the state to take away her kids.
[...]
In one--the photo that would threaten to send Mercado and her boyfriend to prison--the infant Rodrigo is suckling her left breast.
[...]
To Richardson police, who arrived at the store that afternoon and apparently made up their minds from the content of the pictures alone, this was nothing short of a felony case of child pornography. "We thought they contained sexuality," says Sergeant Danny Martin, a Richardson police spokesman.
With nothing else to support their contention that the photos were related to sex or sexual gratification, the police and the Dallas County District Attorney's Office presented the photos to a grand jury in January and came away with indictments against Mercado and Fernandez for "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The charges centered on a single photo, the breast-feeding shot.
[...]
On November 13, the day Richardson police "tossed" or searched Mercado's house, a caseworker with the Dallas County Child Protective Services Unit of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services took custody of the children and recommended to a family judge that they be placed in a foster home.
[...]
In its latest legal filing, the state said it would not consent to releasing the boys until the couple jumps through more hoops, including a lie-detector test they must take at their own expense.
Link
Link
Apart from the obvious idiocy this exposes, it raises some uncomfortable questions about what the ideology of child abuse has done to the way our societies look at the relationship between parents and children. Don't get me wrong, acual child abuse is a nightmare, no doubt. It seems to me, that the ideology of ever-present sexual abuse lurking in even the most natural acts has done more harm than good.
The unholy alliance between extreme feminists, christian fundies and extreme conservatives is threatening to intrude even the most private relationship there is - between mother, father and child. It has acutally succeeded to equate nudeness with sexuality, made breast into an exclusively sexual stimulus and eliminated any non-sexual sensual interpretation.
What will come next? Parents walking naked in front of their children go to jail (indecent exposure? sexual abuse?)? Photos of your nude offspring a criminal offence? If pornography is the depiction of a sexual act, is breastfeeding bordering to actual sexual abuse?
Why are we so hateful of our naked bodies that we put a "sleazy" sticker on photos taken of them?
And what has happened to the "innocent until proven guilty"-idea in this case? Why have the parents to prove they are not lying to get their kids back?
Comments
This clearely says "In one--the photo that would threaten to send Mercado and her boyfriend to prison--the infant Rodrigo is suckling her left breast"
Okay so that is in "ONE". What was in the rest? Also how old is "infant" Rodrigo? Also it says what he was doing to the left breast, but was something going on to the right one? For a story like this to make it to 'legit' it needs to be fleshed out so you can't shoot it apart from the hip. Even if the pictures *were* innocent. There ARE policies at almost EVERY drug store which will not permit them to develop photos with ANY nude content (regardless of context). I know this since I have had occasional arguments with my local wolf camera about some of my art. In any case... the search of the house prompted the childrens removal. How about some more details like WHAT they found there. This story simply leaves this info out IMPLYING that there was nothing. But unless it SAYS nothing was found and that ALL the photos were innocent it really leads you on to INFER more about the story then there really is.
So in short. I'm not outraged, YET. I'd like to see 5 more sources from various outlets with some substance to back up the sensationalism.
It says rather clearly some disturbing things....
Rodrigo is ONE. (and who knows how many months)
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) strongly endorse breast-feeding. However After your baby is 6 months old, you should start introducing other foods along with breast-feeding.
Also they mention that:
"We wanted to see if he would take it, and he did," Mercado explained through an interpreter. "Johnny never saw the child breast-feeding, so this was for memories. For us."
Tradition or NOT, you do NOT 'pose' people in this manner, and certainly not where it bend the rules of decency.
Also note that some of the photos showed the kids ""playing around" at bath time." Those quotes make you wonder don't they?
Also the decision to remove the kids came from a caseworker. It was THEIR reccomendation to the judge. One hyper protective authority is all it takes. So since they had to be 'scolded' for the incident (far be it for the US justice department to backpedal and say they are *wrong*) so they got a minor wrap. But it would appear the caseworker took the torch and ran with it...
"Following the motion and an inquiry by the Observer, the Dallas district attorney dropped the charges against the couple. "
and you didn't stress that they *WERE* getting their kids back. Like I said before, the state has made a boo-boo, but they won't come out and say it. So they dust off your ice-cream cone and hand it back to you, damaged, dirty, and rather embarrassing... but at least you got it back.
I'd say this couple is lucky. They will(or did) get tons of coverage of this story and that's why they walked away with only scratches and no scars. Imagine the families which they *do* catch. Innocents always get shafted, but in the long run if this accidental case helps catch even ONE person involved in child pornography then it is worth it. TOTALLY worth it.
"Worldnetdaily is a prime internet source for Jewish and Christian neoconservatives."
"WorldNetDaily is a extremely partisan mouth piece for the rich and paranoid Richard Mellon Scaife"
"WorldNetDaily is a Christian Right publication and makes no bones about it."
WorldNetDaily is a close second to Alex Jones for the title of "America's Greatest Snake-Oil Show
Yup. Sensational. They just THRIVE on these stories.
I can see it now "Oh, we are ALL such victems!" "See how the evil men do evil things!" "Oh WOE is US!"
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
I noticed you DIDN'T post this bit of the story....
"Following the motion and an inquiry by the Observer, the Dallas district attorney dropped the charges against the couple. "
and you didn't stress that they *WERE* getting their kids back. Like I said before, the state has made a boo-boo, but they won't come out and say it. So they dust off your ice-cream cone and hand it back to you, damaged, dirty, and rather embarrassing... but at least you got it back.
Yeah, but we are not talking about an ice cone here. We are talking about
- the state interfering into a perfectly healthy family without *any* supporting evidence that what was depicted in the photos was not as harmless as they claimed. The "damaged" part is what I worry about. I mean, it's is evil enough this has happened at all, I just took it for granted that anyone would unterstand that the children were transferred back. This is not North Korea we are talking about here, people have some rights.
- the creeping suspicion that nudity == sexual abuse. If you are caught nude, you have to defend yourself. Where did this come from? What would have happened if the guy had a closet full of girly mags or (legit) porn?
I'd say this couple is lucky. They will(or did) get tons of coverage of this story and that's why they walked away with only scratches and no scars.
huh? Apart from a family with supposedly completely shattered trust? They certainly did not sound all too lucky about it.
What would it take for you to at least pity them? Have the guy castrated and the mother locked up for life?
Imagine the families which they *do* catch. Innocents always get shafted, but in the long run if this accidental case helps catch even ONE person involved in child pornography then it is worth it. TOTALLY worth it.
Prosecuting innocents, taking away children from their parents is worth catching some really evil types? This is the kind of hysteria that is looming whenever the problem of sexual abuse is raised.
Originally posted by Scott
I just did a google image search and found a lot of child pornography.
As Germany is no less hysteric, this sentence alone would be enough to have the police searching your place over here...
Also since you are obviously playing the 'shocked and appalled' masses here, I'll play devils advocate.
And so in kind... you say a "a perfectly healthy family "
Since when is posing your child who is at least one (and who knows how many months) sucking your breast a 'healthy family'?
Since when is several topless shots of your wife developable at Eckards? They wouldn't do it for me, and if I had had nude kids in the pictures with my topless wife I would EXPECT problems..
"Prosecuting innocents, taking away children from their parents is worth catching some really evil types? This is the kind of hysteria that is looming whenever the problem of sexual abuse is raised."
YES, absolutely. Are you willing to walk up to a three children who were molested as children, publically displayed on child pronography rings, and totally emotionally destroyed for LIFE and tell them that you wouldn't trade their horrible history for ONE misunderstanding which ended up in charges being dismissed and children being returned?
Do you raise hell EVERYTIME somebody is found INNOCENT and walks? NO! You don't. They are ALL innocent until PROVEN guilty. Inconvenient things happen in trials. If it was in the best intrest of the children to temporarily keep them in foster care for their own protection then they made the right choice. Just because they were innocent you don't go back and scold the state for protecting potentially abused children do you? NO! You say thanks GOD the state acted, because what if they had NOT acted and this case DID turn out to be abusive? THEN the guilt would lay on the state. I'm rather glad they were removed. It shows that the state had a valid concern in protecting their children!
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Since when is posing your child who is at least one (and who knows how many months) sucking your breast a 'healthy family'?
Since when is it a bad sign?
YES, absolutely. Are you willing to walk up to a three children who were molested as children, publically displayed on child pronography rings, and totally emotionally destroyed for LIFE and tell them that you wouldn't trade their horrible history for ONE misunderstanding which ended up in charges being dismissed and children being returned?
Good thing you are neither hysterical nor painting the most gloomy picture to support your case.
Do you raise hell EVERYTIME somebody is found INNOCENT and walks? NO! You don't. They are ALL innocent until PROVEN guilty. Inconvenient things happen in trials. If it was in the best intrest of the children to temporarily keep them in foster care for their own protection then they made the right choice. Just because they were innocent you don't go back and scold the state for protecting potentially abused children do you?
Actually, I do. State should have *no* right to interfere based on such weak proof. And it is not "just because they were innocent". Protecting the innocent is a top priority of civilized societies, especially if it is from crusaders who have obviously lost control about their actions.
Originally posted by Smircle
Protecting the innocent is a top priority of civilized societies, especially if it is from crusaders who have obviously lost control about their actions.
civilized society being the operative words there.
Weak evidence? Hum.. four rolls of film containing nude photos of children and topless photos of women. Hum.... lemmie think... nah.. I don't want the state to have a look at that. Would you have us believe that ALL photos of nude children are harmless?
And I'm certainly not painting any differently then your first post which I already pointed out LACKED a LOT of facts.
And who said that you DO NOT pose people in this way? Where, what cultures? It isn't a common occurence, but I occassionally see a woman breastfeeding out in public, what's the problem? It's how babies are fed, you know. So what if you take a picture of it? I've seen no less in women's health/maternity guides.
In my own house there are at least a few pictures of me as a baby, in the bath, getting a diaper change, running around naked at the beach? Anyone who thinks this is pornographic is simply defective. Nudity and pornography are entirely different.
Moreover, nudity and sexual suggestion simply do NOT deserve the equivocation that our repressed society puts on them, for a number of reasons. Most importantly because you simply cannot account for everything that might turn-on the sickos we're all trying to protect our children against. Yes, nudity can be stronbgly suggestive, but where do you draw the line? If I find a pervert in the back corner of Barnes and Noble whacking off to the Anne Geddes Calendar, does that make Anne Geddes porn? Or National Geographic, or the interior of dozens of churches throughout Italy, all of which feature nudity, and even juvenile and child-like forms (cherubs?)
Now the case of photography is special, since it involves a real person (child) as model, and to create anything, pornographic or not, you need a model to be subjected to the situation. So, we MUST be careful.
I read of this case months ago, and thought of making a topic here, but wasn't really feeling up to wading through the garbage, so I didn't.
You have to ask yourself whether the authorities (all of them, from clerk, through police, through child protection, all) were really being "careful" here, and if they were, then, frankly, you have to think about their mental capacities. I can't conclude that they're all idiots, just as I can't conclude that these parents did anything wrong.
So I have to conclude that there's something just a little bit wrong with the social outlook and general sexual maturation of our culture if we have so many people whose analytical skills are so seriously comprimised whenever they're confronted with the thought of sex.
Sex, encompasses not just "getting it on", or turing us on and getting us off. This is indeed the pornographers outlook. The broader topic grabs a number of entirely healthy concerns aswell, aesthetics, gender, child bearing and rearing, growth, esteem. None of which should be verbotten in any case.
Being interested in free speech (and it's mis-applications) I spoke to a number of people for whom this was immediately an issue: photgraphers, journalists, artists. They were more sensitive to it, because they feel threatened by what they read as a dangerous example of personal taste inflicted on people as law.
I don't think it's that either.
Your concern, Not Unlike Myself, seems to be that the temporary abuse of one family is worth it, if it helps to catch even one pervert. Better safe than sorry. I agree with that sentiment. However, how healthy are we, when as a society we seem to have supressed a fairly basic discerning faculty.
Is it just a case of the media sensationalizing? Do you feel that it is a leftist liberal attack on conservative right family practice/protection? It may be.
For, one, I'm not really concerned with either agenda, so much as how people think and why, which is where I spend most of my time thinking and leads to its own problems.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
civilized society being the operative words there.
Weak evidence? Hum.. four rolls of film containing nude photos of children and topless photos of women. Hum.... lemmie think... nah.. I don't want the state to have a look at that. Would you have us believe that ALL photos of nude children are harmless?
And I'm certainly not painting any differently then your first post which I already pointed out LACKED a LOT of facts.
Well I see the US as a civilized soc
Actually, I believe that photos of nude children are harmless (as are nude beaches, children running around nude...), as long as there are no sexual acts involved. Which obviously were not involved here, I mean gimme a break, just read how they prosecution backtracked when interviewed by the newspaper.
What is wrong with taking a picture of yourself in the tub with your baby? Of your wife in the nude? Are you so oversexed that all you see is sex, sleaze and abuse?
I did not feel like quoting three pages to present the facts, thats what the links were for. As I said, the scandal began with separating the family and launching a search - that in the end the family was reunited is the very least I'd expect. This is far from a good sign, though.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Gimmie some more resources first off. This has classic 'Fox Sensationalizm' written all over it (even if it isn't on their network).
This clearely says "In one--the photo that would threaten to send Mercado and her boyfriend to prison--the infant Rodrigo is suckling her left breast"
Okay so that is in "ONE". What was in the rest? Also how old is "infant" Rodrigo? Also it says what he was doing to the left breast, but was something going on to the right one? For a story like this to make it to 'legit' it needs to be fleshed out so you can't shoot it apart from the hip. Even if the pictures *were* innocent. There ARE policies at almost EVERY drug store which will not permit them to develop photos with ANY nude content (regardless of context). I know this since I have had occasional arguments with my local wolf camera about some of my art. In any case... the search of the house prompted the childrens removal. How about some more details like WHAT they found there. This story simply leaves this info out IMPLYING that there was nothing. But unless it SAYS nothing was found and that ALL the photos were innocent it really leads you on to INFER more about the story then there really is.
So in short. I'm not outraged, YET. I'd like to see 5 more sources from various outlets with some substance to back up the sensationalism.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
If you READ that link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=32282)
It says rather clearly some disturbing things....
Rodrigo is ONE. (and who knows how many months)
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) strongly endorse breast-feeding. However After your baby is 6 months old, you should start introducing other foods along with breast-feeding.
Also they mention that:
"We wanted to see if he would take it, and he did," Mercado explained through an interpreter. "Johnny never saw the child breast-feeding, so this was for memories. For us."
Tradition or NOT, you do NOT 'pose' people in this manner, and certainly not where it bend the rules of decency.
Also note that some of the photos showed the kids ""playing around" at bath time." Those quotes make you wonder don't they?
Also the decision to remove the kids came from a caseworker. It was THEIR reccomendation to the judge. One hyper protective authority is all it takes. So since they had to be 'scolded' for the incident (far be it for the US justice department to backpedal and say they are *wrong*) so they got a minor wrap. But it would appear the caseworker took the torch and ran with it...
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Also remembering:
"Worldnetdaily is a prime internet source for Jewish and Christian neoconservatives."
"WorldNetDaily is a extremely partisan mouth piece for the rich and paranoid Richard Mellon Scaife"
"WorldNetDaily is a Christian Right publication and makes no bones about it."
WorldNetDaily is a close second to Alex Jones for the title of "America's Greatest Snake-Oil Show
Yup. Sensational. They just THRIVE on these stories.
I can see it now "Oh, we are ALL such victems!" "See how the evil men do evil things!" "Oh WOE is US!"
Not,
You know questioning the source instead of the story is just an easy way to avoid any critical thinking.
If Fox and others were attempting to portray this from the angles you claim they come from, wouldn't the story be from an entirely different angle?
I mean the story is basically advocating casual nudity, freedom and comfort with your body, and being at ease sexually around your mate and your children.
If it were coming from an outraged, chaste, Christian Conservative bent, then wouldn't Fox and others be OUTRAGED that this couple had the charges dismissed instead of being prosecuted for taking these dirty filthy pictures?!?
Note: I don't think they are dirty or filthy, but I am portraying the angle they would come from.
Give it some critical thought. Not everything in the world is entirely political. When Drudge posted a story linking gender identification to geneology, I didn't think "That damn Drudge is just advocating homosexual rights again... " Oh wait most would likely think Drudge a conservative news source since he broke Monica-gate.
I don't mind you posting your feelings on something but do more than just spread FUD about the source. Try some thought instead.
Nick
Originally posted by Smircle
[BThe unholy alliance between extreme feminists, christian fundies and extreme conservatives is threatening to intrude even the most private relationship there is - between mother, father and child. It has acutally succeeded to equate nudeness with sexuality, made breast into an exclusively sexual stimulus and eliminated any non-sexual sensual interpretation. [/B]
I'm unaware of the role of feminism here... please explain.
Children should stop breast feeding at 6 months??? Puhleeze people. Breastfeeding until 2 years of age or beyond is not biologically unnatural. Those idiots telling you to stop breastfeading your child by 6 months are basically in Similiac or Infamils pocket$$$$$$.
Rule #1 with your child. Get a freakin' Digital Camera. Dropping of your pictures lets the $5 per hour drugstore employee turn your life inside out with a phonecall. That must not happen.
so folks out there with kids be aware that sears does kiddy porn. sears yet another evil entitiy