Both variants are pretty wtf to me. Not necessarily showing the pictures but explicitly pointing out their genitals.
Showing pictures too.
I think it might be the clinical word vagina vs wee wee, but vajayjay still would be weird in this context. Honestly, dont show strangers your kids genitals.
Yes, all genitals seem weird to show people. I don’t even show them to my parents. I tried not to take them at all, and instead tried to take a few with angles that obscured any private areas. I think my parents have seen a couple of those, but I don’t even send them.
Perhaps the comic is from the mindset 40 years ago. I could easily see parents of that era doing this and thinking it was fine.
I was wondering why you are showing your nudes to your parents and then I realized you are talking about your own kids
🤣🤣 I honestly did the same
I think home photography was still pretty new 30-40 years ago, might be why some families were weirdly oversharing with baby photos? Idk.
I think it’s more that adults sexualizing children wasn’t considered a frequent risk, people didn’t think anyone they knew would look at babies that way. Gen X parents really shifted a lot in terms of culture in the US, under their generation child sexual abuse cases have dropped significantly, and that’s adjusting to unreported numbers.
under their generation child sexual abuse cases have dropped significantly
If this is true, that’s really impressive. I’ve heard how insanely widespread all kinds of abuse used to be through history, often even openly. But if the culture shift was really as sharp as this seems to suggest, I’d be worried it could go almost just as fast back in the other direction.
I can’t say world wide, but in the U.S., home photography was not new 30-40 years ago. I was a kid 30 year ago and I had real camera and various disposable ones over time. Maybe home videography was becoming more common 30-40 years ago, but photography had been around.
It probably differs more across cultures. There are even cultures where public virginity tests are acceptable.
Eh. I have plenty of pictures of my daughter naked as a baby. The weird part of this is showing off the naked picture to a stranger on the bus and making mention of the genitals in specific.
Anyway, everyone knows that naked baby pictures are used to torture children in front of their serious romantic partners brought home for the first time. This has not happened in my 14-year-old daughter’s life yet, but I hope to one day have this privilege that comes with parenting.
My response, when my mom showed my first partner naked baby pictures was to nudge my partner and say "don’t worry, I’ll send you some more recent ones.
My mom super didn’t appreciate the joke, but she never pulled out baby pictures for future partners.
LOL, mom busted out the baby pics for every gf. My. Turn.
Gonna show your new step dad all the naked pics of your mom you have?
That second paragraph is pretty creepy actually, I think you’ve missed the point of the comic.
It’s all fucking weird. I never took photos of my child naked. I don’t get the idea at all.
I’m glad someone else sees it.
I’d say it’s okay to show someone your child’s genitalia when they’ve already seen it anyway.
Yep, my wife has seen my little baby wiener. The awkward teenage pictures were far more embarrassing though. Hers are buried in a hoarder house so I might never get to see her embarrassing school band photos.
I wouldn’t want to see naked photos of a significant other as a minor, but maybe that’s just me.
Normal people don’t view children as sexual beings, so their junk just isn’t any different than their foot. Parents especially. I see my daughter’s vagina several times a day, frequently covered in poop. It doesn’t register any differently than any other part of her that needs cleaning.
You’re still weird if you make a point of showing photos of it to someone though.
It’s everyone who isn’t a weirdo
This thread is giving me the ick
Yeah, definitely. At best they’re arguing tooth and nail for embarrassing their child in front of their partner, if not outright CP.
Major ick.
Right? All you’re doing is saying, “when I saw it last, it was a lot smaller than when you saw it.”
Seeing someone naked as an adult isn’t the same thing as seeing them naked as a minor.
You do see that, right?
Dude, this has been a traditional way for parents to embarrass their adult children in front of their partner for decades. My wife has seen my naked baby pictures without my parents even showing them to her. And I’ve seen hers. What’s the big deal? It’s not like either of us found them sexy.
Chopping part of your child’s dick off has also been traditional for decades, that’s a very poor justification for that behaviour.
I agree
Are you really comparing showing your child’s long-term partner their naked baby pictures with circumcision?
My point is “we’ve always done it like that” isn’t really a justification.
They are challenging the logic, is this really a confusing idea to you?
They are challenging the logic, is this really a confusing idea to you?
it’s still weird (source, i have parents), at least ask your daughter for consent first.
I’d consider it to be a breach of my privacy otherwise.
They’re baby pictures. We’re not talking about something erotic here. Naked babies are not some sort of scandalous thing. In most cultures, they’re normal.
i didn’t take them and i didn’t consent to them existing either. Neither did i consent to them being shown to anybody.
Naked humans are also normal, yet we still wear clothes. babies included, weirdly enough.
At what point does “naked baby photos” turn to “naked children photos” is my question.
how about this. You can have your naked baby photos, you just also have to be in the photo and naked as well.
Taking photos of naked children isn’t, and shouldn’t, be normal in any culture I’m familiar with, and you definitely shouldn’t be showing them to anyone.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CONSENT IS
YOU LEARN IT AT SCHOOL, ITS VERY IMPORTANT
Removed by mod
Tbf child marriage is also traditional, Muhammed had a 9yo bride (it’s “ok,” he didn’t have sex with her until she was 11.)
Defending things based solely on tradition can get pretty weird sometimes.
That’s a tradition that ended a long time ago. I’m talking about traditions that are ongoing. Also traditions that, despite someone else’s claim, probably don’t cause any psychological harm, at least most of the time.
I think you may be surprised and hopefully disturbed by this UNICEF article.
Despite a steady decline in this harmful practice over the past decade, child marriage remains widespread, with approximately one in five girls married in childhood across the globe. Today, multiple crises – including conflict, climate shocks and the ongoing fallout from COVID-19 – are threatening to reverse progress towards eliminating this human rights violation. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals call for global action to end child marriage by 2030.
So no, it was not “a long time ago.” It’s “hopefully by 2030.”
Also traditions that, despite someone else’s claim, probably don’t cause any psychological harm, at least most of the time.
Oh, so as long as you don’t believe the person and can therefore invalidate their feelings without guilt, and it only psychologically hurts “some” people who you I suppose arbitrarily believe over the ones you don’t, it’s fine?
Not sure I can agree with you on this one.
You do understand that to cultures where this isnt the norm, it sounds ridiculous to show naked pictures of your child when they were an infant to, well anyone?
It being a tradition has no bearing on it being awful or not. Circumcision is a tradition.
I’m sure you can find a more modern way to embarrass your child without resorting to CP?
Which cultures? And why do they get to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Also, naked photos of children are not child porn. Do you think they come out of the womb with clothes on?
I had to clean shit out of my daughter’s vagina regularly when I changed her diapers. Was that, similarly, sexual assault?
I personally have no use for pictures of baby genitals, but you really do huh? It even makes you upset we want to take away your baby genital pictures huh?
Is this some perverse form of individualism?
Edit: if you took a picture of you cleaning your daughters vagina out, and showed someone, yes that would be child porn and child abuse.
Today I learned flying squid is okay with this kind of thing and that’s fucked up
It’s a violation of privacy & consent
How do you get a baby’s consent exactly?
You can’t, that’s why you don’t take photos of them naked.
NO IT IS NOT
Always get the consent of the now adult that was in the picture as a child or don’t take the picture if they are still a child
Dude, do you think I would intentionally cause my child actual pain? My god.
Downvoted because taking pictures of your child is still weird even though you don’t show them to anyone
Sorry… taking pictures of a child is weird?
Do you think cameras steal the soul or something?
His issue was phrasing. The woman used a euphemism which significantly shifted her perceived intentions. “Look at his little wee-wee” is far removed from “look at his little penis.” Synonyms are not created equal, so simply substituting without considering connotation will only cause confusion. He should have said “get an eyeful of her little vagina.”
Look at her little vajayjay, nope still weird.
Gawk at her crack, mate!
Nope.
Gander her bandersnatch
Hmm
Behold the axe wound
Huh
Crack, cocaine.
Even worse.
I think if he referred to it as her little pussy or cunny it would make it significantly worse.
That’s more adult slang for vagina. Little kid euphemism would be something like hooha or twinkle.
Man saying that to another man is still questionable. Still sounds like he’s lending his child out for drugs.
vomiting intensifies
Are there people seriously calling vagoos as hoohas
You call called them vagoos. I’m not sure you have much room to judge.
I’d say coochie but that one makes them sound less pointy
Why do you think of vulvas as pointy?
The characters sound. I don’t know what you mean
No word feels great which is pretty sad considering how many child-friendly euphemisms there are for a penis. With my daughter we try to emulate the same vibe as ‘willy’ combined with some anatomical accuracy by using the word ‘vulvy’. Sounds gross to many, makes sense to others. Your mileage may vary haha.
In the UK, we call it a minnie for girls. Willy for boys.
Nope, not better.
I mean, penises are just inherently funny. Look at them, they’re ridiculous.
I feel personally attacked.
I just remember the Simpsons movie where Bart Simpsons penis is portrayed for a few seconds, I’m really sure that they don’t have the balls to portray a child vagina
Because penises are funny and vaginas are a line.
True. Imagine comparing the humour between a meatsicle vs just a hole.
Having had four kids, if you are showing people pictures of any baby in the bath naked, they’re gonna be upset no matter the gender. I don’t think his is true at all.
I wish I could burn half my mother’s photo albums.
You can. Just not yet
Given there are people in this thread defending this tooth and nail, that’s quite reassuring to know actually.
Let me guess. You’re a guy.
You guys want to consider gender in vacuum but it is never a good idea.
Look at the sexualisation and brainwashing of the girls and patriarchy and men having this big power gap and sometimes using it in the most monstrous of the ways even today let alone 100 years ago. This is why the second image is big wtf while the first is small wtf.
That’s because in the first no one would immediately think that they sexualise the boy while in the second we arrive at this conclusion immediately and without hesitation thanks to all the hard work of men thorought history.
I know having this original sin of your fathers on your shoulders is not a cool feeling but this is the reality we are in.
The sooner this collective PTSD heals and that can only happen after some time of treating women as humans, the better for everyone. Problem is that point in history is far, far away considering the core issue is still prevalent.
It will take another 100 years of intense education and raising new generations to have the society that isn’t obviously fucked up and deeply hurt.
You’re right, but I feel showing people photos of your child’s genitals should never be OK, outside of medical professionals etc.
Collective ptsd is not real and anyone who uses that term should be mocked mercilessly for the rest of their life.
In fact, collective trauma can impact relationships, alter policies and governmental processes, alter the way the society functions, and even change its social norms (Chang, 2017; Hirschberger, 2018; Saul, 2014)
I never said collective trauma does not exist
collective trauma refers to the impact of a traumatic experience that affects and involves entire groups of people, communities, or societies. Collective trauma is extraordinary in that not only can it bring distress and negative consequences to individuals but in that it can also change the entire fabric of a community (Erikson, 1976).
I appreciate your efforts but it is a real, scientifically proven phenomenon.
“Collective trauma” ≠ “collective PTSD”
Sure, but PTSD is a specific disorder that individuals are diagnosed with. If a group of people are unable to work towards a single goal, saying they have “collective ADHD” is imprecise and potentially offensive to people with the diagnosis.
That said, I knew what you meant 🤷
I think there’s a couple of people around with collective OCD that just can’t stand metaphor.
Jokes aside, and not being a sociologist, I do think it’s a good distinction because PTSD implies a maladaptive reaction to trauma, and communities, just like individuals, can process their trauma well or they can mess it up.
It seems to be the accepted term in the scholarly and clinical community.
“Collective trauma” or “collective PTSD”? The latter is what we were discussing earlier in this thread. It has zero occurrences on Google Ngrams: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Collective+PTSD%2C+collective+trauma&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
I was talking about collective trauma which OP was citing, though their initial term is collective PTSD.
Why would you use n-gram and not journal search engine like Google Scholar. There seems to be an engagement in the concept of collective PTSD since about 2007.
Is this an area of research or practice for you? It is not mine.
Trauma and ptsd can be used interchangeably. PTSD is more precise term and clinically significant. Trauma is more colloquial. I used PTSD on purpose to accent the debilitating effect it has on the society as a whole.
trauma and ptsd cannot be used interchangeably at all. PTSD is a specific mental condition documented in the DSM-5 and recognized by doctors that have multiple variations and nuances that must be taken into account. Trauma is an overarching term to describe experiences that have had a significant and profound impact on someone’s mental state and health. I’m not usually a crazy stickler for word usage but this is just horribly imprecise language. You can have trauma without having PTSD. They are not the same thing and should not be treated as such.
Trauma and ptsd can be used interchangeably
the sky, and blue jeans can also be used interchangeably.
You wouldnt though.
No, collective trauma is proven. Collective ptsd is not.
Aydin, C. (2017). How to Forget the Unforgettable? On Collective Trauma, Cultural Identity, and Mnemotechnologies, Identity, 17:3, 125-137, DOI: 10.1080/15283488.2017.1340160
The hot tl;dr of this that is going to get you a lot of angry boys sending you incoherent diatribes is that we haven’t decided as a species that we will stop sexualizing youth.
Yes there are biological imperatives for the sexually aggressive sex to seek out mates that are young, healthy and capable of producing offspring before they become too old to reproduce. That’s all a thing that’s real, but it’s as far distant in our past as most other ancient instincts that we’ve put to rest. We just keep this one alive because we want it to continue broadly. The whole notion of older men predating and sexualizing youthful appearances or “innocence” as standards of femininity is absolutely something that if we all decided together was no longer acceptable, it would end tomorrow. (Or realistically in one generation.) This is not a more natural part of us than anything else we choose to follow or not, because we are well above using any natural response system as an excuse to allow dangerous social norms to continue.
The reason I say this is because there are a lot of men who will secretly or overtly hold the position that since we have biological urges, then it must be natural and acceptable. Meanwhile, ya’ll fuckers completely ignore the thousand other biological drives and standards that we’ve abolished because they’re unproductive, hurt people or just have gone out of style.
For example: body odor. Do you really think we were using soap and perfume when we were packed together in huts and caves for the last thousand millennia? You are genetically identical to the people who used to bury their faces in each other’s armpits to identify each other in the dark, but the thought makes you gag now because you were socialized to feel repulsion at this. (Fetishes aside.) We can socialize ourselves to believe and internalize almost anything, we are far, far beyond the forces of natural selection and are now choosing our evolutionary path. Wouldn’t it be nice if we chose good paths that respected others and protected children.
(Fetishes aside.)
damn, you got me on that one.
It will take another 100 years of intense education and raising new generations to have the society that isn’t obviously fucked up and deeply hurt.
I don’t share in your positivity.
sexualisation and brainwashing of the girls and patriarchy and men having this big power gap
Women can do what men can’t = sexualisation and brainwashing of the girls and patriarchy. Ok. “Men having this big power gap” indeed.
and sometimes using it in the most monstrous of the ways
tl;dr “Misandry is perfectly fine because men are evil and nothing a woman has ever done is wrong.”
The problem isn’t that the bottom scenario isn’t accepted, it’s that the top scenario is. No one should be showing off nudes of children in public, or anywhere really, regardless of gender. It’s weird, it’s sick, and it has no place in this world.
There’s nothing wrong about nude children or any other human old or young. Just go to a beach in Europe…
Yes Americans are weird about this thanks to years of well… catholic brain rot
If you’re taking photos on a nude beach in Europe you’re getting decked. Kid, adult, doesn’t matter.
There’s a massive fucking difference between sitting naked in a sauna with other naked people and sitting on public transit, fully dressed, gossiping about non-consensual nudes of children. How is that even a question. How are you capable of equating those things.
Nude adult humans = Nothing wrong Nude children = “Hi, I’m Chris Hansen with dateline NBC”
Children do not belong on a nude beach
Well you have no idea then. Here no one cares. It’s normal and nothing sexual about it
And not even on the nude beach either on a normal beach too there’s hordes of nude children running about. I am waiting for your head to explode now
Such a weird thing to say … when I was little ('70s) it was not uncommon for kids to swim nude, we didn’t care… Any adults who are ogling kids aren’t going to stop just because of one layer of clothing.
It’s weird, it’s sick, and it has no place in this world.
Only if you think a naked body = sex, which is a weird assumption to make if you think about it.
Except the comic doesn’t show them discussing or showing a naked body, it’s a weirdo pointing out the genitals to another person in a very public place. If it was toes, it’d be fine. If it was just a naked body it’d be whatever, mostly. But they’re specifically pointing out genitals, that implies sexual focus. It’s only “cute” and “funny” for the old women here because eventually it’ll be an organ used for sex…
Nah, it should never be acceptable to show photos of people naked to your friends without their express permission. Outside of medical professionals of course.
Because the only time it’s appropiate for two people to be naked together is when dey fucking?
You misinterpreted OP, otherwise I also do think the top scenario is weird.
we arrive at this conclusion immediately and without hesitation thanks to all the hard work of men thorought history.
you say this like women have ever had rights to the point that being ogled at “would be bad” the one argument here would be the “daughter is her fathers property” and that’s not really a gender thing, that’s a social custom about gender more than anything.
Thanks for the lecture, professor.
My god damn pleasure sub
Maybe we should encourage suicides in boys starting in schools, would that work for you? Edit: if you are going to down vote me the offer an idea the left will actually do. Otherwise I guess we are bringing up more republican rapists. ‘50% of the world population would feel safer if you died’ is the messaging the left offers so lean I to it or change the messaging
username checks out.
Removed by mod
Situation also matters. This appears to be on a bus and between acquaintances. Do this same thing at home toward the adult child’s significant other and it becomes a funny thing parents do to embarrass their kids.
I just wouldn’t bring my significant other around if my parents were like that. That’s absolutely gross behaviour.
So labia, then? Or vulva, maybe. Unless that camera is an internal one, they’re likely not seeing any vaginas.
I too took middle school health class
I feel you and what everyone is doing annoys me too, but our only recourse is to do something worse.
My proposal: we start calling our cock “corpora cavernosa”.
Examples:
- “Hey, Chumley, don’t just stand there with your corpora cavernosa in your hand.”
- ”He’s being a total corpora cavernosa!”
- ”My corpora cavernosa got pinched by my zipper.”
- ”Hey, bro, does my corpora cavernosa hook off to the right?”
Yes.
And why do we think that might be different? Anyone?
The assumed innocence of women and the assumed guilt of men.
Yes. And why was that?
Misandry and the belief that anything with a penis is evil, even if the individual in question doesn’t even want to have a penis
No, but that is a compelling narrative.
It’s because men sexually assault women a lot. Like, an awful amount. Children, relatives, the whole thing: 1 out of 3 women have been sexually assaulted. That’s why it’s different.
You are absolutely right and this so obvious, yet, I see that you get about 50% downVotes and those might be from people I usually block.
As a male victim of TWO count 'em TWO sexual assaults perpetrated by TWO count em TWO different women, “fuck me, I don’t matter.”
You gonna bring up that I “obviously wanted it because I’m a man” next? Go ahead and block me for downvoting both that comment and yours, make my lemmy a better place.
Thanks for your important testimony. I have come to believe that your case in is an exception but I have no means of knowing this for sure and I apologize for being triggering.
Because the overwheling majority of sexual assault convictions are of men. It’s true.
Laughing at a child’s penis still sucks though.
Because the overwheling majority of sexual assault convictions are of men. It’s true.
OHHH because the women who sexually assaulted me didn’t get convicted in a court of law, because I didn’t report them, because nobody cares about male victims, we should use that to further invalidate the experiences of future male victims? My mistake, how silly of me.
I’m sorry to hear that happened to you. I do not think that the statistics of abuser demographics should be relevant to their prosecution. That is a different thing to the thing I was talking about.
It would seem you think that women should be presumed innocent and men presumed guilty based on the number of people in each respective demographic that have been convicted of sexual assault in a court of law, based upon this thread here.
I think no such thing, and if you got that impression from what I wrote then I must have expressed myself extremely badly.
Sexual assault sucks, no matter who does it, nor to whom. You deserve justice for what happened to you.
Here is the point I was trying to make:
-
More men are convicted for sexual assault than women.
-
Sharing pictures of a child’s penis without consent sucks. Maybe it’s sexual assault. Even if not, I believe it is a bad thing to do.
-
Some women do it anyway, and they get away with it because they’re not seen as the sexual assault demographic. This sucks.
-
It’s a leftist thing. I am liberal but I do not have any dillusions on how I am viewed by my ‘fellow’ liberals.
¿Que?
deleted by creator
I don’t know how you mean, but okay.
Because they are sitting in a pink colored train, and not in the blue colored one.
Also no, but interesting point
Because nobody cares when double standards negatively impact boys or men.
No, but very men’s rights there.
No, just equality. Isn’t that what feminism is about?
Dead right.
So close
I wish I was still dumb enough to be conservative. I was happier than. I hate myself now everyday I wish I had the courage to kill myself
Conservatives live in an endless cycle of outrage and fear, the fuck you talking about happy
But it’s not at themselves
At its core it usually is, but they often push it outward. My experience with a conservative religion was mostly just self hatred at not being good enough too honestly, but my personality was never much on the conservative axis. Or rather, when I did stuff on that level I never felt good about them.
Nowadays, girls can have a wee wee. 😬
No, they are babies, they don’t even know how to speak, how are they going to be able to know what “gender” even means?
Calling a baby with wee wee a girl is the same as calling your 18 year old trans daughter a boy, you are just trying to brainwash them.
deleted by creator
Oh, hee hee hee.
“Nowadays, boys can have a vagina.”
What the fuck!?
the child cant talk yet and has no sense of wtf a “gender” is, its fine lol
… and?
Yes, but if she’s a baby nobody knows she’s a girl yet, including her.
This is worst response. Others at least said “No, they are babies, they don’t even know how to speak, how are they going to be able to know what “gender” even means?”, but your “nobody knows she’s a girl yet” is so wierd.
I mean it is true. For the baby they don’t have any idea about gender. For others, it’s just a fair assumption
Why? A trans person isn’t born cis, they’re born, as you said, not even knowing what gender is. A trans woman was always a girl, but only someone who knows the future would know that when she’s a baby.
