Johnson's Baby Wipes and Child Pornography / Child Prostitution
Special Care
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you view British television even a little, your eyes will have been
assailed daily by an advertisement for Johnson's baby wipes, which is
shown frequently, as well as many other advertisements in the same
vein. I don't remember exactly, but there may be more than one such
advert for the same product. The imagery is of glamorous women
lovingly caressing naked babies, usually ending with a woman kissing a
baby on his bare buttocks.
These infants are incapable of giving their consent to this parading
of their naked bodies in full public view, solely for financial gain.
The mothers of these babies get paid for letting their babies' naked
bodies be displayed for profit, and the manufacturers of Johnson's
baby wipes get paid via increased sales.
And the advertising agency get their cut, all on the basis of
exploiting babies' naked bodies solely for financial gain.
This looks very similar to child prostitution. The sole motive is
financial gain, for the mothers of the babies, for the advertising
firm, and for the manufacturers of the product being promoted.
What will those children think of this when they are old enough to
know that their mothers prostituted them as babies, selling images of
their babies' naked bodies for financial gain?
It's a godsend for paedophiles. Free child porn images supplied
publicly by the mothers for financial gain. I have difficulty
understanding what we call paedophilia, but logically I can deduce
that paedophiles probably are turning to these advertisements as a
safe way of accessing child porn, by making recordings of TV
programmes in which these ads are broadcast during the commercial
breaks, and then repeatedly replaying the adverts for Johnson's baby
wipes while masturbating furiously over your baby's naked body.
The emotional fallout for those tragic children when they grow up and
realise what their mothers have done to them - doesn't bear thinking
about.
-------------------
It's alien to me - the concept of being sexually aroused by babies and
young people generally. I like a quiet life, and can only view babies
and young people as an irritation to be avoided. I am attracted only
to women of mature age.
In my healing writings, such as "Your Baby is not a Sack of Potatoes,
Mrs !", I used images of naked babies taken from publicly available
educational / childcare websites. This was necessary for educational
and healing purposes. In my earlier efforts, up to about a year ago, I
used text only in my educational / healing writings. When it became
clear that text alone was making little impression on people, I saw
that images of the mother-infant relationship in action were needed to
bring the text alive in the reader's imagination and to convey to the
reader the reality of what actually goes on in the mother-infant
relationship. That is a healing project, and the use of publicly
available images of mothers and babies is essential for educational /
healing purposes in that context.
My healing writings contrast starkly with those TV adverts for
Johnson's baby wipes, and numerous similar adverts, which cynically
exploit the naked bodies of babies who cannot give consent, solely for
cynical, exploitative financial motives.
If my naked body had been exploited for financial gain when I was a
baby, and paraded publicly for all the perverts to masturbate over....
I know what I would say to my mother in adult life............
How much did they pay you for prostituting my body, Mummy? Was it
worth it? What did you spend the money on, Mummy?
And this is happening in Europe and North America, and being done by
mothers who are not short of a bob or two.
If the mothers were in South East Asia, and desperate for money to
feed their baby, and used the advertising agency fee to nurture the
same baby to make a difference to his health and development, that
would be different. But it is not so.
-----------------------
The cops are madly pursuing anyone who has an image of a child on his
computer.
But the mothers who prostitute their babies naked bodies for the
mother's financial gain, and to sell more Johnson's baby wipes, and to
enrich the advertising industry..... these mothers are supplying
videos of their babies' naked babies, including a video sequence of a
woman kissing their baby on his naked bottom - pure child porn - and
these women, these filthy dirty female child pornographers, are not in
jail at the time of writing but are still walking free on our streets
and living it up on the cash proceeds of prostituting their babies
naked bodies.
------------------------
Finally, it is interesting to observe the following. Men very often
care for babies, changing their nappies and bathing them and dressing
and undressing them, and applying Johnson's baby powder and Johnson's
baby wipes.
Supposedly the inclusion of men in baby care is part of the PC
agenda.
Yet no men are shown in those adverts for Johnson's baby wipes.
I wonder why.
-------------------------
PS - This issue is of huge importance and needs to be discussed. I am
not aware of anyone having raised it before now. People hesitate to
reply to me because my healing writings are so radical. I have started
this thread because these obscene TV adverts exploiting babies naked
bodies need to be challenged and subjected to the same scrutiny and
sanctions as other manifestations of child porn and child
exploitation. If anyone wishes to reply here, I will not intervene
with any further reference to my healing writings, only what is stated
above. This is about Johnson's baby wipes and those filthy dirty child
pornographer mothers exploiting their babies naked bodies for
financial gain. That's what this discussion is about.
-------------------------
Meta
to justify something by attacking Johnson's Baby Wipes commercials.
First of all, only the most demented person would get off on viewing a
little babie's bum (I think). To me, a little baby is the most
precious and adored image - how could anyone think of exploiting a
baby?! When I see those commercials - I don't think of anything other
than, "Isn't that a cute little baby."
I do want to point out that in South East Asia - people will sell
their young daughters as prostitutes for money. NOW THAT IS
EXPLOITATION. The reason being is because those girls are performing
sexual acts - do you see the difference?
Mentalguy2k8
"Special Care" <Special...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ab0e9c3e-f5ef-42db...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
This says more about you than anyone else. No wonder you reply to all of
Nige's posts like a fawning puppy.
Special Care
for financial gain are described as what they are, people are
embarrassed and will not apply logic and realism and then take
realistic action. This indicates mental illness in the entire human
population, known as *scotoma* .
If we approach this solely on a legalistic basis, we can start by
noting that in Europe and North America people are being jailed,
fined, losing their jobs and even being kicked to death by vigilantes
for possessing images like the ones being peddled to make money for
Johnsons, for the mothers of the babies, and for the advertising
agency. Yet seemingly these people are immune to prosecution, they are
above the law.
If the law does not apply to everyone, there is no law.
I've heard of a categorisation system for child pornography - level
one, level two, etc. I don't know what it means, but when we're
talking about images of an adult kissing a baby on his bare bottom,
that must be one of the 'higher' levels.
These images are on our tv screens many times each day, solely for
financial gain.
Yet if anyone had these images in their possession not for financial
gain but because they are beautiful images, they can be jailed, fined,
lose their jobs, or lynched.
This is about being consistent, about the choice confronting us, a
choice between
(a) +++ continuing to make fools of ourselves,
or
(b) +++ being able to perceive what is presented to our senses, being
capable of basic syllogistic logic, and acting accordingly.
In other terms, a choice between
(a) --- continuing to display symptoms of severe mental illness -
mainly *scotoma* in this context,
or
(b) --- recovering from the mental illness of *scotoma* which we are
currently displaying in the context of imagery of naked babies being
kissed on their bare bottoms by adults.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Johnson's Baby Wipes and Child Pornography / Child Prostitution
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip odd take on baby ads>
And there was I thinking it was a dastardly way to play on a woman's
mothering instincts and possibly lowered self esteem after having a
child.
"My baby will be nice and dry."
"I will be seen as a good mother."
"Mebbee I'll look glamourous like her."
As to your other comments, yes, possibly, given that such persons exist.
but then do you make kids wear burkas on the beach in summer or wear
shapeless baggy clothes all the time?
Pedophiles, it seems, will always be with us - like any other
sexualaberration - but that's no reason to restrict our kids enjoyment of
the world to an absurd degree.
To return to the ads you mention, none of the kids seemed to be in
distress and none of them looked like they were being or had been abused.
Not all all like that poor little chap in the BW video for abused
children who knows that "no matter how long he cries, no one will come".
I found that a VERY disturbing image, and the child is quite clearly
distressed and crying, yet I found myself accepting the need for an
advert if it helped even one child see better days.
FWIW
M.
Special Care
To most people the images of mother and baby in those adverts are
beautiful and cheering.
Yet if anyone possessed the same images on paper or in a video
sequence which is *not* advertising baby wipes, the assumption would
be that s/he is a paedophile and such a person could expect to be
fined, jailed, lose their job, hounded out of their homes...
Yet such images are shown on our tv screens in nearly every commercial
break.
Solely from a legalistic stance, I would say those advertisements must
be breaking the law, and if the law were applied equally to everyone,
then Johnsons, the mothers of those babies, the models, and the
advertising agency would all be fined or jailed and placed on the sex
offenders register.
Meta
I concur.
Cynic
wrote:
>> I found that a VERY disturbing image, and the child is quite clearly
>> distressed and crying, yet I found myself accepting the need for an
>> advert if it helped even one child see better days.
>I concur.
To clarify what you are saying : you believe that distributing and
viewing images of child abuse is justified if it can be argued that it
might possibly save just one child from abuse?
--
Cynic
Ishtar
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I found that a VERY disturbing image, and the child is quite clearly
> >> distressed and crying, yet I found myself accepting the need for an
> >> advert if it helped even one child see better days.
> >I concur.
>
> To clarify what you are saying : you believe that distributing and
> viewing images of child abuse is justified if it can be argued that it
> might possibly save just one child from abuse?
>
> --
> Cynic
====
If we're talking about the same thing, I think that referred to an
image of a child aged about five years who was asked to put on a sad
facial expression for a tv advert, to raise money for charities like
NSPCC and fellow travellers.
I'm sure it was all explained to the child in question and he was
astute enough to know what he was doing.
I don't think the child was abused, but he was certainly exploited for
financial gain, and undoubtedly he raised an awful lot of money for
the professional charity operators with their fat salaries and
inflation-proof pensions and company cars and expense accounts and
fully subsidised foreign travel and stays in expensive hotels to
attend all these international symposiums / conferences to "discuss"
child welfare for a little while and then live it up in the local
clubs and brothels.
When you dontate to ANY charity, you need to understand that that is
largely where your money is going.
Repeat: when you dontate to so-called "charities," your money is going
primarily to:
professional charity operators [=PARASITES] with their fat salaries
and inflation-proof pensions and company cars and expense accounts and
fully subsidised foreign travel with stays in expensive hotels to
attend all these international symposiums / conferences to "discuss"
child welfare etc. for a little while and then live it up in the local
clubs and brothels.
That's where much of your "charitable" donations are going to.
When I was a little boy in 1950s Ireland, I used to put a penny in a
collection box on the teachers desk, collecting for the "black
babies," meaning the poor babies of Africa in the 1950s. I had no idea
at the time that my pennies were used to feed and clothe paedophile
Irish priests and Irish Christian Brothers so that they could live it
up in the Congo and Kenya, buying food for themselves with my pennies,
while sticking their penises up the anuses of the black babies, when I
thought my pennies were going to buy food for the black babies, and
not to subsidise sexually frustrated white men who were unable to get
a girlfriend and so joined the priesthood and relieved their sexual
tensions by sticking their penises up the anuses of the black babies
in a place where they could get away with it. That's what Christian
missionary work is all about. So that's where my pennies were going.
Irish priests were growing fat on my pennies as they shoved their
penises up the anuses of the black babies.
So that was my first lesson in the reality of what it means to make a
donation to a "charity."
Meta
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I found that a VERY disturbing image, and the child is quite clearly
> >> distressed and crying, yet I found myself accepting the need for an
> >> advert if it helped even one child see better days.
> >I concur.
>
> To clarify what you are saying : you believe that distributing and
> viewing images of child abuse is justified if it can be argued that it
> might possibly save just one child from abuse?
>
> --
> Cynic
It depends on the context in which the disturbing images are being
used. If they are used in the form of an advertisement against child
abuse, then yes. However, if the disturbing images are distributed
amongst paedophiles to be viewed for "pleasure" - then my answer would
very emphatically be, NO.
Webmanager_CritEst
[To me, a little baby is the most precious and adored image - how
could anyone think of exploiting a baby?]
Because it is precious and adorable.
Meta
Also, I'm not quite sure what these images are that you are talking
about, but if they were being used in an adverstisement - I would hope
that the organization and people using the photos and agreeing to
their usage, would strictly be a non-profit endeavor.
Webmanager_CritEst
[To return to the ads you mention, none of the kids seemed to be in
distress and none of them looked like they were being or had been
abused. ]
They are not in nearly every indecent image of a child - quite the
opposite.
WM
Meta
wrote:
And when every precious and adorable thing is destroyed and exploited
on this godforsaken earth, than what?
Webmanager_CritEst
Why? there is nothing illegal about being sexually aroused by
'disturbing' images.
You are clearly inconsistent about the nature of child exploitation,
for whatever reason.
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
It will not matter ... they are simply localised, recent, romantic
notions, based on uncontrollable and irrational brain chemistry.
WM
Meta
wrote:
concurring that advertisers should not be allowed to use images of
naked babies no matter the context used? Are you saying that a normal
healthy baby having his bum wiped by his mother should be banned
because it could be misconstrued as pornography?
Cynic
wrote:
>> >> I found that a VERY disturbing image, and the child is quite clearly
>> >> distressed and crying, yet I found myself accepting the need for an
>> >> advert if it helped even one child see better days.
>> >I concur.
>> To clarify what you are saying : you believe that distributing and
>> viewing images of child abuse is justified if it can be argued that it
>> might possibly save just one child from abuse?
>It depends on the context in which the disturbing images are being
>used. If they are used in the form of an advertisement against child
>abuse, then yes. However, if the disturbing images are distributed
>amongst paedophiles to be viewed for "pleasure" - then my answer would
>very emphatically be, NO.
So it is mainly the pleasure of the viewer that you object to rather
than the image of a suffering child?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>So then, you must be in agreement with Peter Newman? Are you
>concurring that advertisers should not be allowed to use images of
>naked babies no matter the context used? Are you saying that a normal
>healthy baby having his bum wiped by his mother should be banned
>because it could be misconstrued as pornography?
You are confusing the images in question. The image under discussion
is one that advertises the NSPCC by showing videos of children being
abused.
--
Cynic
Webmanager_CritEst
I must?
What is the logic?
WM
Westprog
...
> It depends on the context in which the disturbing images are being
> used. If they are used in the form of an advertisement against child
> abuse, then yes. However, if the disturbing images are distributed
> amongst paedophiles to be viewed for "pleasure" - then my answer would
> very emphatically be, NO.
There's an unfortunate trend in society - typified by this thread - which
almost regards the most perverse and wrongful attitude as the norm. The
protection of children from exploitation can in itself, when it becomes
pervasive, have exactly the effect of the harm we're trying to protect them
from - premature sexual awareness.
--
J/
SOTW: "I'm On A Boat" - The Lonely Island
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9xK7MBU00
Michael O'Neill
Well, actually nope I wasn't referring to actual images of children being
abused, either sexually or physically - its an advertisement for a
charity on TV!
Perhaps I should have given a fuller description.
There is a young boy standing in a cot, with a tear-stained face, looking
dirty and uncared for, although with no obviously large bruises or breaks
in the skin.
The boy looks genuinely unhappy, and his face appears to be lit while
surrounded by a darkened set.
Yes, you could argue that he's the best young actor of his generation,
and the surrounding imagesof a well-lit studio were "airbrushed" out, but
it seemed to me he was in genuine despair and very, very sad.
'Nuff said.
M.
Meta
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:22:11 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
I think it is neccessary to revisit the original thread here so I went
back and reread it and copied the postscript below for reference. The
original thread was in reference ONLY to naked babies in Johnson's
Baby Wipes commercials. Micheal O'Neill was making a reference to
another advertisment entirely. The reference was made for the sake of
saying that the naked babies having their bums wiped were not in any
pain and then he referenced an ad where the child DID appear to be in
pain, to contrast the two.
"There is a young boy standing in a cot, with a tear-stained face,
looking
dirty and uncared for, although with no obviously large bruises or
breaks
in the skin.
The boy looks genuinely unhappy, and his face appears to be lit while
surrounded by a darkened set. "
Postscript of original thread:
"PS - This issue is of huge importance and needs to be discussed. I
am
not aware of anyone having raised it before now. People hesitate to
reply to me because my healing writings are so radical. I have
started
this thread because these obscene TV adverts exploiting babies naked
bodies need to be challenged and subjected to the same scrutiny and
sanctions as other manifestations of child porn and child
exploitation. If anyone wishes to reply here, I will not intervene
with any further reference to my healing writings, only what is
stated
above. This is about Johnson's baby wipes and those filthy dirty
child
pornographer mothers exploiting their babies naked bodies for
financial gain. That's what this discussion is about. "
In answer to your question, Cynic, people can engage in any emotion
they feel like when viewing the images on advertisements - there is no
law that I know of that prevents a human from engaging in any emotion
they feel like. My response to Michael was simply in agreement that
there should be nothing wrong with a little baby being washed by his
Mummy in an advertisement for a baby product as the baby is not
experiencing any pain or doing anything "unnatural".
The image that Michael was talking about is something entirely
different. This is the reference that he was making:
Meta
> Meta wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > It depends on the context in which the disturbing images are being
> > used. If they are used in the form of an advertisement against child
> > abuse, then yes. However, if the disturbing images are distributed
> > amongst paedophiles to be viewed for "pleasure" - then my answer would
> > very emphatically be, NO.
>
> There's an unfortunate trend in society - typified by this thread - which
> almost regards the most perverse and wrongful attitude as the norm. The
> protection of children from exploitation can in itself, when it becomes
> pervasive, have exactly the effect of the harm we're trying to protect them
> from - premature sexual awareness.
>
be more specific?
Ishtar
>
> You are confusing the images in question. The image under discussion
> is one that advertises the NSPCC by showing videos of children being
> abused.
For the sake of accuracy, I understand that there are two types of
images under discussion in this thread:
1. Images of glamorous female models using Johnsons baby wipes on
other not-so-glamorous women's babies for financial gain, finishing by
kissing another woman's baby on his bare bottom;
2. Images of children aged about five years, coached by parasitic
charity operators to put a sad expression on their faces and pretend
to be crying and abused, to milk our donations out of us so that the
*fake charity operators* can live it up on our money with their
expense account jobs and company cars and foreign junkets and safe
pensions .............. at at time of economic distress for us mere
mortals........... while pretending to help children.
That's just for the sake of accuracy. Those are the two categories of
images that were referred to here.
Meta
Albeit, that is _your_ emotional take on the pictures. Do we really
have any factual evidence that these children (babies in Johnson's
baby wipe commercials) are undegoing any physical harm?
And........how do you know that the children being photographed in the
adverts for child abuse, have _not_ been physically abused? Do you
have any factual evidence to back these allegations up, Mr. Newman?
Cynic
<o...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote:
>> You are confusing the images in question. The image under discussion
>> is one that advertises the NSPCC by showing videos of children being
>> abused.
>Well, actually nope I wasn't referring to actual images of children being
>abused, either sexually or physically - its an advertisement for a
>charity on TV!
>Perhaps I should have given a fuller description.
>There is a young boy standing in a cot, with a tear-stained face, looking
>dirty and uncared for, although with no obviously large bruises or breaks
>in the skin.
The voice-over makes it clear that the boy has that appearance because
he is being abused (through neglect). Therefore it is a child-abuse
image.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>> >It depends on the context in which the disturbing images are being
>> >used. If they are used in the form of an advertisement against child
>> >abuse, then yes. However, if the disturbing images are distributed
>> >amongst paedophiles to be viewed for "pleasure" - then my answer would
>> >very emphatically be, NO.
>> So it is mainly the pleasure of the viewer that you object to rather
>> than the image of a suffering child?
>I think it is neccessary to revisit the original thread here so I went
>back and reread it and copied the postscript below for reference.
<snip>
A lengthy reply, but sadly one that completely avoided the simple
question I asked.
--
Cynic
Westprog
The very act of warning and protecting children against a handful of
perverts is in itself potentially harmful. If the idea is to prevent
children taking on sexual roles inappropriate for their age, then talking to
them about such issues is in itself potentially corrupting.
There's clearly a balance to be struck, but I think that the panicked
response is not the most sensible.
Meanwhile, society is increasingly teaching ever younger girls to evaluate
themselves in terms of sexual desireability.
Cynic
wrote:
>Meanwhile, society is increasingly teaching ever younger girls to evaluate
>themselves in terms of sexual desireability.
ISTM that that has always been the case. Hollywood has had many child
stars from way back (e.g. Shirley Temple) who they have portrayed in a
sexualised way. There is a huge proportion of children's clothing
available in high-street shops that is obviously designed to mimic
"sexy" adult attire. Child beauty contests are common and popular in
many countries, including the US.
Society condones and encourages the sexualisation of children (up to a
point) whilst at the same time decrying anyone who openly admits that
they see it for what it is as being wrong and perverted.
The trick is in using the politically correct descriptive words. A
child who has obviously been made up to look sexy should *never* be
described using the word, "sexy" (except in a joking way). Use the
word "cute" instead, and your description will be considered
acceptable.
--
Cynic
Meta
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:37:48 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >It depends on the context in which the disturbing images are being
> >> >used. If they are used in the form of an advertisement against child
> than the image of a suffering child? se, then yes. However, if the disturbing images are distributed
> >> >amongst paedophiles to be viewed for "pleasure" - then my answer would
> >> >very emphatically be, NO.
> >> So it is mainly the pleasure of the viewer that you object to rather
> >> than the image of a suffering child?
> >I think it is neccessary to revisit the original thread here so I went
> >back and reread it and copied the postscript below for reference.
>
> <snip>
>
> A lengthy reply, but sadly one that completely avoided the simple
> question I asked.
Which was.................................
>
> --> So it is mainly the pleasure of the viewer that you object to rather
> than the image of a suffering child?
> Cynic
Neither one. I only object to images being taken out of their
original context and being distributed for the sake of "pleasure and
enjoyment". Does that answer your question?
Meta
with his own sexuality in a healthy, natural way. It is society that
perverts that healthy instinct and serves to restrict it and constrain
it.
Cynic
wrote:
>> A lengthy reply, but sadly one that completely avoided the simple
>> question I asked.
>
>Which was.................................
The one you have quoted (below)
>> --> So it is mainly the pleasure of the viewer that you object to rather
>> than the image of a suffering child?
>Neither one. I only object to images being taken out of their
>original context and being distributed for the sake of "pleasure and
>enjoyment". Does that answer your question?
Not really. Is it the "taking out of context" that is your main
objection, or the distribution "for the sake of pleasure and
enjoyment"? Or are both things necessary for you to condemn it?
The first (taking out of context) does not apply to genuine child
pornography, because the context is exactly as it appears to be.
The second (deriving pleasure from the image) is what I believe is the
*real* reason for most people's condemnation. Is it *really* that
much worse than a company that uses such images to gain financial
advantage rather than personal pleasure?
--
Cynic
Special Care
---------
The fact that the voiceover accompanying an advertisement says
something - does not mean it is true.
For example, the UK Advertising Standards Authority accepts that false
claims made in advertisements may be deemed "acceptable hyperbole."
I have not looked, but if you make a recording of such adverts, you
*may* find some small print at the beginning or at the end stating "no
children were harmed in making this advertisement."
The original argument was to draw attention to inconsistency in the
publication of such images.
For example, if you place a framed picture on your desk at work
showing an adult kissing a baby on his bare bottom, because you see it
as a delightful image of maternal love, signifying hope for humanity,
you will lose your job and be fined or jailed and placed on the sex
offenders register, although such images of several adults kissing
several babies on their bare bottoms are being shown on our tv screens
every hour, while those responsible are not punished.
Meta
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> A lengthy reply, but sadly one that completely avoided the simple
> >> question I asked.
>
> >Which was.................................
>
> The one you have quoted (below)
>
> >> --> So it is mainly the pleasure of the viewer that you object to rather
> >> than the image of a suffering child?
> >Neither one. I only object to images being taken out of their
> >original context and being distributed for the sake of "pleasure and
> >enjoyment". Does that answer your question?
>
> Not really. Is it the "taking out of context" that is your main
> objection, or the distribution "for the sake of pleasure and
> enjoyment"? Or are both things necessary for you to condemn it?
It is the _combination_ of the two; taking out of context and then
distributing for the sake of pleasure and enjoyment. Does that answer
your question?
>
> The first (taking out of context) does not apply to genuine child
> pornography, because the context is exactly as it appears to be.
I was referring to what Mr. Newman was saying about the Johnson's Baby
Wipes commericals theoretically being taped and then played back for
pleasure and entertainment in a perverse way.
>
> The second (deriving pleasure from the image) is what I believe is the
> *real* reason for most people's condemnation. Is it *really* that
> much worse than a company that uses such images to gain financial
> advantage rather than personal pleasure?
Once again, I was referring to Mr. Newman's original post where he
referred to the photos being taken out of the context of the
commercial and being used in a perverted way.
>
> --
> Cynic
Meta
>
> - Show quoted text -
None of those examples you listed should be punished because the
images you describe do not show abuse of the child.
Cynic
wrote:
>> The first (taking out of context) does not apply to genuine child
>> pornography, because the context is exactly as it appears to be.
>I was referring to what Mr. Newman was saying about the Johnson's Baby
>Wipes commericals theoretically being taped and then played back for
>pleasure and entertainment in a perverse way.
>> The second (deriving pleasure from the image) is what I believe is the
>> *real* reason for most people's condemnation. Is it *really* that
>> much worse than a company that uses such images to gain financial
>> advantage rather than personal pleasure?
>Once again, I was referring to Mr. Newman's original post where he
>referred to the photos being taken out of the context of the
>commercial and being used in a perverted way.
How do you justify any interference whatsoever in an activity that
does not harm a single other person on the planet? ISTM that what
other people choose to do in private, so long as it does not harm
anyone else, is none of your darn business.
--
Cynic
Graham Murray
> None of those examples you listed should be punished because the
> images you describe do not show abuse of the child.
Neither do photographs of children (naked or in swimwear) playing on the
beach or teenagers in bikinis at a swimming pool. Yet people have been
punished for taking/possessing these.
Meta
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
Fair enough. Just one more reason why I don't post pictures of my
family or myself on the internet - or anywhere else for that matter.
I too, have rights and so do my children.
Meta
Well, I'm not the one doing the punishing.
Cynic
wrote:
>> How do you justify any interference whatsoever in an activity that
>> does not harm a single other person on the planet? ISTM that what
>> other people choose to do in private, so long as it does not harm
>> anyone else, is none of your darn business.
>Fair enough. Just one more reason why I don't post pictures of my
>family or myself on the internet - or anywhere else for that matter.
>I too, have rights and so do my children.
You have no right not to be seen by other people, either in the flesh
or in a photograph. Such a right would be totally impractical.
If there are any parts of your body that you do not wish other people
to see, it is your responsibility to keep those parts covered up. If
you do not wish people to see photographs of yourself or your
children, then it is your responsibility to prevent such photographs
from being available - though you have no right to stop other people
from photographing you or your children, so it would be impossible to
completely prevent it without having to live like a hermit or dress
like a Muslim woman.
And you *certainly* do not have any right to forbid people from having
any type of thought or emotion when they look at you (or your
children). Not that I understand how you would (a) know that they had
such thoughts or emotions or (b) why it would worry you if they did.
--
Cynic
Meta
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:40:02 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
O.K. You win! My three daughters DO post their pics in MySpace just
as all young people (and old) do, but I don't touch that stuff with a
10 foot pole! I had the bad experience, being naive and new to the
world wide web, and sharing personal photos of my children about 10
years ago and the pics were taken out of context and posted in a
derrogatory manner on a website and I was publicly humiliated. No
more.
Special Care
> ........ the pics were taken out of context and posted in a
> derrogatory manner on a website and I was publicly humiliated. No
> more.
------------
The humiliation was in your mind, because you thought it. You didn't
have to think of it at all. Such childish pranks are only ripples in a
fish tank, little fish pretending to be big fish. I'd say your mistake
was even to give that a second thought. The world is full of proles /
plebs / sheeple.... leave them alone with their little thoughts.
Cynic
wrote:
>O.K. You win! My three daughters DO post their pics in MySpace just
>as all young people (and old) do, but I don't touch that stuff with a
>10 foot pole!
As is definitely your right. Though you would have no right to demand
the removal of a photograph of yourself that someone else had taken
and published.
> I had the bad experience, being naive and new to the
>world wide web, and sharing personal photos of my children about 10
>years ago and the pics were taken out of context and posted in a
>derrogatory manner on a website and I was publicly humiliated. No
>more.
I'm sorry to hear that. In what way were they taken out of context
and used to humiliate? If they were published in a way that misled
the viewer, it would constitute libel - though it is not practical to
take legal action for any but the most serious libel unless you are
extremely wealthy.
--
Cynic
Big Les Wade
>>world wide web, and sharing personal photos of my children about 10
>>years ago and the pics were taken out of context and posted in a
>>derrogatory manner on a website and I was publicly humiliated. No
>>more.
>
>I'm sorry to hear that. In what way were they taken out of context
>and used to humiliate? If they were published in a way that misled
>the viewer, it would constitute libel - though it is not practical to
>take legal action for any but the most serious libel unless you are
>extremely wealthy.
He could have sued for breach of copyright, though; or, more
proportionately, approached the offender's ISP with a takedown notice on
copyright grounds.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
Meta
Meta
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:09:32 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >O.K. You win! My three daughters DO post their pics in MySpace just
> >as all young people (and old) do, but I don't touch that stuff with a
> >10 foot pole!
>
> As is definitely your right. Though you would have no right to demand
> the removal of a photograph of yourself that someone else had taken
> and published.
You're right, I can't argue with that.
>
> > I had the bad experience, being naive and new to the
> >world wide web, and sharing personal photos of my children about 10
> >years ago and the pics were taken out of context and posted in a
> >derrogatory manner on a website and I was publicly humiliated. No
> >more.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. In what way were they taken out of context
> and used to humiliate? If they were published in a way that misled
> the viewer, it would constitute libel - though it is not practical to
> take legal action for any but the most serious libel unless you are
> extremely wealthy.
I created a webpage about myself and my family and had posted it to a
newsgroup on the www. One of the pictures was of my daughter when she
was three years old, sitting on the lap of her pre-school teacher.
Some schmuck (who remained anonomous and wouldn't fess up) lifted the
picture of my child's teacher and placed the head on top of a
caricature of a woman masturbating and the caption referred to the
woman playing with her clitty. And........supposedly this woman was
me - which is even worse because it was my daughter's teacher.
P.S. I am not wealthy.
Cynic
wrote:
>I created a webpage about myself and my family and had posted it to a
>newsgroup on the www. One of the pictures was of my daughter when she
>was three years old, sitting on the lap of her pre-school teacher.
>Some schmuck (who remained anonomous and wouldn't fess up) lifted the
>picture of my child's teacher and placed the head on top of a
>caricature of a woman masturbating and the caption referred to the
>woman playing with her clitty. And........supposedly this woman was
>me - which is even worse because it was my daughter's teacher.
There is no way you can prevent people from using a photograph that is
*not* you but claiming that it *is* you.
In the situation you describe, if the web site was hosted in the UK,
you could have got the page pulled PDQ. Alternatively the police
would probably have pursued a complaint of harrassment and traced the
culprit through the hosting site.
If the culprit did not reside in the UK, dealing with it could be a
bit more difficult, but with a lot of hassle (but no expense) you
could have found the perp and got them into a bit of hot water.
There was also copyright infringement to threaten them with - getting
an injunction would not have cost a great deal of money if they
refused to pull the image voluntarily.
On the flip side, it is of course also possible for a person to create
a website in which they publish false photographs that serve to
increase their standing. Enhance themselves to look better.
Photoshop an image that appears to show them being friendly with
famous celebrities, or doing athletic, daring or clever activities.
--
Cynic
Meta
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Meta <metare...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I created a webpage about myself and my family and had posted it to a
> >newsgroup on the www. One of the pictures was of my daughter when she
> >was three years old, sitting on the lap of her pre-school teacher.
> >Some schmuck (who remained anonomous and wouldn't fess up) lifted the
> >picture of my child's teacher and placed the head on top of a
> >caricature of a woman masturbating and the caption referred to the
> >woman playing with her clitty. And........supposedly this woman was
> >me - which is even worse because it was my daughter's teacher.
>
> There is no way you can prevent people from using a photograph that is
> *not* you but claiming that it *is* you.
>
> In the situation you describe, if the web site was hosted in the UK,
> you could have got the page pulled PDQ. Alternatively the police
> would probably have pursued a complaint of harrassment and traced the
> culprit through the hosting site.
At the time I made the website, I didn't know much about usenet. I
don't even remember what the name of the host was - and for some
reason the site closed down and I was no longer able to access my
files - this was around 1999. The person who lifted the picture off
of my personal webpage posted it to a usenet group that I used to
frequent.
>
> If the culprit did not reside in the UK, dealing with it could be a
> bit more difficult, but with a lot of hassle (but no expense) you
> could have found the perp and got them into a bit of hot water.
>
> There was also copyright infringement to threaten them with - getting
> an injunction would not have cost a great deal of money if they
> refused to pull the image voluntarily.
>
> On the flip side, it is of course also possible for a person to create
> a website in which they publish false photographs that serve to
> increase their standing. Enhance themselves to look better.
> Photoshop an image that appears to show them being friendly with
> famous celebrities, or doing athletic, daring or clever activities.
Thanks - wish I'd known all this back then. Oh well.
Special Care
Your mistake was to think about them.
If you don't think about them, they do not exist in your life.
I don't give a shite about what anyone says about me on the web or in
The Sun "news"paper.
Fuck 'em. I do not think about such matters.
These are just ripples in a little pond.... little fish pretending to
be big fish..... little ripples made by "pinkeens"... as we called
those little fishes in Dublin in the 1950s..... "pinkeens" pretending
to be bigger than they are....
They are not worth a thought.
Do not even begin to think about these "pinkeens" on the internet, and
just get on with your life, attending to the ones you love, the ones
who are able to keep sane while surrounded by an insane civilisation,
the ones who deserve and have earned the right to occupy space in your
thoughts.
Special Care
http://www.bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/958