It's sexualising children. It's titillating. Pedophiles would love it and this is kind of stuff they collect and masturbate over. The children who are photographed naked and semi-naked don't have the capacity to consent. That's what makes it abusive.
The fact that pedophiles may find the picture attractive doesn't make it child porn per se. I mean, the skimpiness of the clothes isn't what makes the picture creepy, but the caption and the confused faces and awkward poses the children are in. My point is, children are innocent and oblivious to anything sex-related. If in company with healthy people, like, hopefully, their parents, who view them for what they are - children, and nothing more, this level of nudity isn't and shouldn't be frowned upon. Reminds me of a case where the parents were persecuted because they had pictures of their child playing in the tub, naked, obviously. Now that's pretty stupid.
This nudity shouldn't be frowned upon in a family setting. The problem is that once a photo is taken, it becomes public property. This photo was intended to be public. Those children do not have the capacity to consent to a photo of them semi-naked being made public.
In this case, the semi-nudity is extremely problematic because those photos will be used by pedos. These are exactly the types of photos they collect, trade and make lurid comments on. I have seen it.
view the rest of the comments →
Xpol ago
There is child porn displayed as art.
The link has already been posted here. http://archive.is/r8Tdw
Someone needs to archive her entire Instagram before it disappears.
We need a team effort on this and someone to catalog the posts. There are over 400pictures that need to be archived
hauzer ago
How is that child porn?
Piscina ago
It's sexualising children. It's titillating. Pedophiles would love it and this is kind of stuff they collect and masturbate over. The children who are photographed naked and semi-naked don't have the capacity to consent. That's what makes it abusive.
hauzer ago
The fact that pedophiles may find the picture attractive doesn't make it child porn per se. I mean, the skimpiness of the clothes isn't what makes the picture creepy, but the caption and the confused faces and awkward poses the children are in. My point is, children are innocent and oblivious to anything sex-related. If in company with healthy people, like, hopefully, their parents, who view them for what they are - children, and nothing more, this level of nudity isn't and shouldn't be frowned upon. Reminds me of a case where the parents were persecuted because they had pictures of their child playing in the tub, naked, obviously. Now that's pretty stupid.
Piscina ago
This nudity shouldn't be frowned upon in a family setting. The problem is that once a photo is taken, it becomes public property. This photo was intended to be public. Those children do not have the capacity to consent to a photo of them semi-naked being made public.
In this case, the semi-nudity is extremely problematic because those photos will be used by pedos. These are exactly the types of photos they collect, trade and make lurid comments on. I have seen it.