Jake Huether Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote]Why so be so quick to judge if you haven't seen the pictures?[/quote] I'm just judging the opposite way you are. But you are judging that the pics were decent that that the woman had good intentions. Why be so quick to judge? I suppose we should both not judge. Baby pics can be good. They can also be bad. Without the pictures in hand and the intentions of the lady revealed to us all, we have no idea. To me, I just have an uneasy feeling. You feel differently. We will never know, and are simply left to our opinions. You know mine, so I'll leave it at that.
peach_cube Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Of course, if you really need the money you could just sell the computer.
Fidei Defensor Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='Honour' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:42 AM']The lady said they show more in diaper comercials so obviously there werent any exposed privates! E-bay is full of sob story auctions, for a good cause, and some of them do well....I don't blame the mother, and I'm not sorry for the kids. Of course none of us saw the pictures, but it seems like everyone is over reacting. [right][snapback]651053[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It still doesnt explain why someone would want to buy any picture of children. I would suspect that there would be more pedophiles looking for pictures of children then "regular" people who would pay for a picture of children. How much do you suppose one would pay for a picture of some person's children? not a whole lot. How much would a pedaphile be willing to pay for a nude picture of children, taking into account their mental illness. A lot. How does one make any useful amount of money off of a picture of your children, unless you include that they are a) nude and b) the possibility that someone would want it so much that they would pay a larger sum of money for it because of a mental condition. Keep in mind, this picture is not "art" its a family picture. Now, i am not saying the woman is a sick person making money off of her naked kids, but i am just saying, it could be a possibility in other cases. I mean, if you had this desperate need for money, why would you choose, of all things, a picture of your kids in a tub to sell?
avemaria40 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) umm, hello, have u seen Johnson's baby bath commercials? they try to make money by showing babies in the bath, how is that different from what this woman is doing? Also, as dUSt pointed out, Celine Dion has a pic of her holding her naked baby son on her CD, and she makes $$ on those CDs. So is she perverted by doing that? Or, if u had a child, wouldn't u take pix of them in the bath as babies? My sis, bro, and i have all those pix and there is nothing shameful about them. And if she pointed out that diaper commercials show more, its prob a good bet that those were decent pix. And, parents do worse things, like have their eleven year olds pose in bikinis and fishnets and flash for the camera to put on the Internet to make money for the kid's college fund, and that is prob worse since there are some eleven year olds who are developed but babies aren't and if anyone gets turned on by babies in the bath, as i mentioned earlier, they have issues. I don't want to sound mean but that's the truth. Also, about the lady getting a job, what if she already works and that job is only so they can make ends meet? what if she doesn't have time for another job so she's trying to make money, just to see her daughter? Maybe she ran out of ideas on how to get the money. Edited July 20, 2005 by avemaria40
TLJC Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Putting naked kids on ebay or the internet is crazy. Sure there is nothing sexual but you must understand that there are sick people out there and by selling them on ebay or even making them available for viewing is a bad idea. Why even do it? who wants to buy pics of kids in a bath apart from pervets.... she should be questioned by Police! she calls herself a mother
Ash Wednesday Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 You know, what she did was pretty stupid and she probably realizes it now. There's no need for us to keep verbally crucifying her.
StColette Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) If we're gonna make a big deal about ebay we better make a big deal about the internet entirely. I mean I know of people who have family pages on the internet with pictures of their kids in bathtubs etc. Unless those pictures are locked anyone could save them to their computer and print them off and get them that way. And I highly believe that the people who have pics of their kids online think about people printing off pictures of their kids. They put them on to share. [quote name='TLJC' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:53 PM']Why even do it? who wants to buy pics of kids in a bath apart from pervets.... [right][snapback]651122[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Who says it has to be just bath tubs. What about the pictures Dust was talking about. With the cute little babies completely naked. People buy complete books of those pictures. I have a bookmark with a cute little angel baby on it. Is this wrong too ? Edited July 20, 2005 by StColette
StColette Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:59 PM']You know, what she did was pretty stupid and she probably realizes it now. There's no need for us to keep verbally crucifying her. [right][snapback]651131[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Exactly!
Fidei Defensor Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='avemaria40' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:46 PM']umm, hello, have u seen Johnson's baby bath commercials? they try to make money by showing babies in the bath, how is that different from what this woman is doing? Also, as dUSt pointed out, Celine Dion has a pic of her holding her naked baby son on her CD, and she makes $$ on those CDs. So is she perverted by doing that? Or, if u had a child, wouldn't u take pix of them in the bath as babies? My sis, bro, and i have all those pix and there is nothing shameful about them. And if she pointed out that diaper commercials show more, its prob a good bet that those were decent pix. And, parents do worse things, like have their eleven year olds pose in bikinis and fishnets and flash for the camera to put on the Internet to make money for the kid's college fund, and that is prob worse since there are some eleven year olds who are developed but babies aren't and if anyone gets turned on by babies in the bath, as i mentioned earlier, they have issues. I don't want to sound mean but that's the truth. Also, about the lady getting a job, what if she already works and that job is only so they can make ends meet? what if she doesn't have time for another job so she's trying to make money, just to see her daughter? Maybe she ran out of ideas on how to get the money. [right][snapback]651111[/snapback][/right] [/quote] A commercial is for the purpose to sell a product or a service. The focus is not the babies, but the product. The purpose of a picture is the subject. In this case, the subject of the picture is the children, so the money is coming from a desire to see the subject. Celine Dion's images are considered art. Again, the purpose of buying the CD is to listen to the music, so one does not purchase the CD for the picture unless they are sexually attracted to the image, or they for some reason feel like paying $13 for a picture that they could look at on the internet. One taking a picture of your child or children in the bath is not the problem. You would think that you would keep it for your personal memories and enjoyment. But if you sell it, you are selling it because of the subject of the picture. And in that case, what i said still stands. Not many "normal" people would pay for a personal family photo of people they dont know. But when you throw the aspect in of the nudity, it opens the market up more to those who might desire such. And with the job thing, it doesnt matter if she works or not. Selling a family photo is not a sufficient source of money. One might think a person who thinks they will gain anything from selling pictures of their kids isnt a big thinker in terms of what you can sell, because if she were really that desperate, like someone suggested, she could have sold the computer or something to make alot more that $5.
Ora et Labora Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='avemaria40' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:46 PM']umm, hello, have u seen Johnson's baby bath commercials? they try to make money by showing babies in the bath, how is that different from what this woman is doing? Also, as dUSt pointed out, Celine Dion has a pic of her holding her naked baby son on her CD, and she makes $$ on those CDs. So is she perverted by doing that? Or, if u had a child, wouldn't u take pix of them in the bath as babies? My sis, bro, and i have all those pix and there is nothing shameful about them. And if she pointed out that diaper commercials show more, its prob a good bet that those were decent pix. And, parents do worse things, like have their eleven year olds pose in bikinis and fishnets and flash for the camera to put on the Internet to make money for the kid's college fund, and that is prob worse since there are some eleven year olds who are developed but babies aren't and if anyone gets turned on by babies in the bath, as i mentioned earlier, they have issues. I don't want to sound mean but that's the truth. Also, about the lady getting a job, what if she already works and that job is only so they can make ends meet? what if she doesn't have time for another job so she's trying to make money, just to see her daughter? Maybe she ran out of ideas on how to get the money. [right][snapback]651111[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Thats a good point!
Ora et Labora Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:02 PM']A commercial is for the purpose to sell a product or a service. The focus is not the babies, but the product. The purpose of a picture is the subject. In this case, the subject of the picture is the children, so the money is coming from a desire to see the subject. Celine Dion's images are considered art. Again, the purpose of buying the CD is to listen to the music, so one does not purchase the CD for the picture unless they are sexually attracted to the image, or they for some reason feel like paying $13 for a picture that they could look at on the internet. One taking a picture of your child or children in the bath is not the problem. You would think that you would keep it for your personal memories and enjoyment. But if you sell it, you are selling it because of the subject of the picture. And in that case, what i said still stands. Not many "normal" people would pay for a personal family photo of people they dont know. But when you throw the aspect in of the nudity, it opens the market up more to those who might desire such. And with the job thing, it doesnt matter if she works or not. Selling a family photo is not a sufficient source of money. One might think a person who thinks they will gain anything from selling pictures of their kids isnt a big thinker in terms of what you can sell, because if she were really that desperate, like someone suggested, she could have sold the computer or something to make alot more that $5. [right][snapback]651139[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Thats also a really good point Jared! Um... I think its good to tell our e-pals our point of view, we did that, lets stop now. I didnt say mine though. What that lady did was not bad, but, all I'm wondering is, why bath pics?
Fidei Defensor Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I agree. We dont know all the specifics, but i think we all agree that it is not a good choice to sell a picture of your children in the tub on eBay. Thats whats important. All the details and such are not important.
Ora et Labora Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:14 PM']I agree. We dont know all the specifics, but i think we all agree that it is not a good choice to sell a picture of your children in the tub on eBay. Thats whats important. All the details and such are not important. [right][snapback]651162[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Doddo!!!!! You go Jared!
TLJC Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) we dont know the facts?? someone was trying to sell a picture of her naked children to a stranger for money... aint that enough? well done ebay for pulling the picture, if she wants to go to America there are better ways than selling pictures of your children on ebay cute or no cute! Also whyy naked? before someone jumps in a says you cant be in a bath with clothes, what i mean is why bath tub photos. If you can password protect your photos to share with friends and family then that is acceptable to load naked photos as its not illegal for any person to be naked. But basic alarm bells must start ringing when every day something happens on the internet involving childporn :nono: Edited July 20, 2005 by TLJC
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 I guess I don't understand the issue. Naked babies are cute. And if someone has a problem with pictures of babies I advise that they stay away from Churches in Italy. Almost every depiction of the Infant Jesus was naked (that I saw). I even remember seeing paintings of Mary with Jesus and Mary had one or both breasts exposed. I think it's beautiful. If the pictures were of an erotic nature that would be beyond sick. But nudity in itself is beautiful. The part I'm confused about is, if she wanted to sell pictures on E-bay to make money, why on earth would she choose nudes of her kids? The internet is so full of pervs it seems a bit bizzare to me. I really don't know what to think about it.
Guest Eremite Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 I have a picture of me at about age 4 or 5 going potty in the woods, if anyone would like to see it. Seriously, I do. Although I think I would have been disturbed if my mother SOLD it online...
homeschoolmom Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 20 2005, 07:26 PM']I have a picture of me at about age 4 or 5 going potty in the woods, if anyone would like to see it. [right][snapback]651737[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I have a picture of my son doing the same thing. Here's the BIGGER question-- Did she post a pic of the photo at her auction? If so, why in the world would ANYONE, pervert or not, buy it since they could just print it off the computer? If not, why would anyone buy a "cute" photo of annonymous children sight unseen? (Mothers have a less than objective idea of what's cute and what's just normal.)
phatcatholic Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='Noel's angel' date='Jul 20 2005, 06:23 AM'][i][b]One of the photographs[/b][/i] showed her 11-month old daughter naked in the bath with her young brother and sister. . . . . “If I had put more thought into it; if I had put more thought into the photographs I was posting…obviously it was [i][b]the bathtub one[/b][/i] which put everybody off. When I put them on, I never thought in those terms.[right][snapback]650768[/snapback][/right][/quote] wouldn't this imply that there were other pics of her children other than the one of them in the tub. everyone here keeps saying, "she posted naked pics on the internet", as in "numerous pics of naked children" when it would appear that she posted many pics of her children but there was ONE of them in the tub. understood this way, her intentions seem much more benevolent to me. honestly, i can understand quite well why a perfectly normal person would buy them. children are beautiful. go to Hobby Lobby or some arts-and-crafts store and you'll see tons of pictures, posters, and paintings of children, together or at play. the real shame is that the evil in this world has forced us to be paranoid over non-issues. i wouldn't call her "sick" or "greedy" or even "stupid"............maybe .just a little naive. i would have taken that one pic out, just b/c you never know who is lurking, but i also [i][b]completely understand[/b][/i] why she left it in.
cmotherofpirl Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 I think this is ridiculous. Naked babies are beautiful. God made them that way. Most parents have pics of their babies naked on a rug, playing in the pool etc. The woman thought she had a beautiful picture of her kids, her only fault is shes not in advertising. Sure there are perverts out there, but we don't let our lives be ruled by them. We don't say I can't take that pic or post that pic, a pervert might be watching. Common sense should rule, not fear.
avemaria40 Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 i def agree w/u cmom. honestly, do we have to be, like gnostic or something, where the human body is met w/contempt? the body is beautiful, and as long as ur intentions aren't to degrade it (i.e. porn, immodesty, etc.) wat is wrong w/it? at the coffee shop i go to, i saw many cards w/beautiful artwork and some had pix of babies in the bath. also, in the Catholic prayer book my aunt gave me, there is a beautiful picture of Our Blessed Mother being visited by Gabriel and she was surrounded by scantily clad baby angels but its a beautiful and religious pic so nobody reacted to that.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now