Good Advice PGH!

keeping it simple, just don't post childrens' pictures to the internet, (Social sites facebook , myspace ect.) you want FRIENDS and FAMILY to see your childs pictures,email them or send a copy in the mail

PGH. your advice is really good.

As for the article, it seems to ask the right questions, where do we draw the line ?

I'd like to encourage folks to watch the "Stranger Danger" episode of Penn & Teller's show Bull@!$%#. Probably one of the best takes I've yet seen on all this fear and other hubbub regarding the dangers for our kids out in the world. People have been made extremely paranoid by the media, which takes the 1-in-1.5 million instances of actual child endangerment and spreads its news like wildfire around the world, which fools people into thinking it's going to happen any minute to each and every single child out there. But, really, there's about a 1-in-1,500,000 chance of such a thing happening.

For perspective, you've a 1-in-50 chance of dying in a car wreck. So, don't ever take your children anywhere in a vehicle. You also have a 1 in 750,000 chance of being struck by lightning. So, should a thunderstorm roll through, you'd better hope you can drive faster than that storm moves to be able to keep your child far away from it. Of course, that also requires getting them in a vehicle, so your odds are actually better with the lightning storm. But, even better odds for not being harmed come with letting your child actually experience the world, rather than constantly being terrified that a predator is going to get hold of him or her--even if you post baby pictures of your child on Facebook.

Seriously, people, all this fear and terror stems from ignorance of the facts, not from the facts themselves. The numbers don't lie, and if you take time to check into them, you'll see that you're a far greater threat to your child's life when you take him or her for a ride in a vehicle than not keeping your child on total lockdown ever could be.

I have a social networking page. I do not post pictures of my minor children on it. The page is quite secure, only friends are on it, but you never know. My 17 year old has her own page. She doesn't need to be on mine.

Facebook is a bad idea period. I have worked in the internet business for 15 years and you only have to say or do anything questionable and you will regret it for ever....

Thanks PGH I post few pics on line and put e mailed pics on discs or flash drives. I have my first grand baby coming and do want to protect her.

It is too crazy but an aquaintance was arrested with over 6,000 kiddie pics (not relatives) on his computer. All who knew him were shocked and disgusted. It can be anyone.

L.J.,

Well Said!

Paranoia run a muck! We have have been made into a country of cowering imbeciles by the cable news networks!

These parents are nutjobs.

You are reinforcing what the article says: we live in a culture of fear. We assume everybody is a criminal. Our society is collapsing. When trust in our fellow humans is gone, why do we call ourselves a group, a tribe, a country? We are just fearful individuals protecting ourselves from the fears of our mind. Then we go to church, or temple and claim in G-- we trust. Do we? We don't even trust our laws anymore.

You assume your "friends" will not call Child Protection Gestapo about your pictures ? I wouldn't bet on it. 

LJ Rhodes............. What are the ODDS of me not taking EVERY MEASURE TO PROTECT MY CHILDREN

the odds are greater that i would be struck by lighting 3 times while standing in a bucket of water on Mt. Washington in New Hampshire. Than let my kids go unchecked.

Sinuhe, you are unfortunately; completely right. More than economic 'snafus', illegal immigration, the rise in crime, education melt-down . . . you have stated what the primary problem for America is now.

The plain truth is, there are pedophiles all over the place. You can check out your neighborhood on the internet and see how many sexual offenders live nearby. I found in my neighborhood, many were arrested for sexual relations with minors.

I don't agree with those odds especially nowadays since kids don't wonder the streets unchecked like when I was growing up. To see a small kid walking by him or herself is no longer that common, and because of that, his or her odds of being selected by a preditor is greatly increased. The pickens are smaller now. Hell you even hear of children being taken right out of their own beds in the middle of the night. I can't begin to imagine what the parents go through when that happens.

Would I let my kids go out unchecked? No way. You only get one chance to raise a healthy child, there are no do overs, no restart button. I'm doing everything I know how to do to make sure they grow up healthy and safe.

I'm right there with you, imrightnotyou.

As many have commented on, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with taking pictures of your children, even naked. However, in the times we live in posting such pictures on any web site would be ill advised considering some of the people lurking on the internet.

When such pictures were taken back in the time before the internet they were usually placed in scrapbooks or family albums. This is where such pictures should be placed today.

I've never seen the point in taking nude photos of my children, even as babies. Why? I don't get it. I can see maybe walking around in a diaper but totally commando, I don't think so. Even if I took them, which I didn't and have no regrets, I'd never ever put them on the internet. I can't think of one good reason.

The internet is an open highway into your home. What you post online can potentially seen by anyone in the world who has internet access. Even what you percieve as an innocent child photo in the buff, a sicko from across the street or the Atlantic Ocean can use that for his or her own perverted pleasures. They can even sell them to those sick pedophile magazines. The thought disgusts me.

"Land of the free, and home of the brave" is a more obsolete lyric than "One, two buckle my shoe."

We have become a nation of cowards.

@imrightnotyou: I don't think anyone suggested you let your child run around unchecked. That's stupid and shows a lack of desire to communicate with others. To not even give the other side the courtesy of assuming they are moderately intelligent is insulting and derogatory. The sentiment expressed was to not cloister your child (we're on the Internet, look it up). There's a difference between letting a child go unchecked and not letting a child near an open window for fear they will be sucked out and spirited away.

Laced713: You should be banned from this board, if not from communicating with others at all. The suggestion that a person that identifies with LGBT lifestyle is a pedophile by nature is abhorrent and bigoted and disgusting. It's your brand of fear-mongering and distrust that has normal Americans running in fear. It's your inability to communicate in a rational manner with people you disagree with that feeds BS "news" organizations like Fox and Beck. You are the worst form of illiterate, uninformed scum.

Setting all pics to "Friends Only" is god advice but many people don't know that When posting pics / albums on facebook, you can even select specific people among your friends who'd have access to those pics.

Since it's not illegal to take photos in public, maybe we should all invest in full burkas and long robes for our children and grandchildren. Please be advised that I wrote that "tongue-in-cheek". But reading some of the comments here, one would suspect that we are only one step away from that already. I'm fed up with hearing what a dangerous world this "has become." The dangers have always been there--we just weren't bombarded by them every day. The media feeds us the sensationalist journalism that we beg them for. But how many children were taught to be afraid of strangers and then were molested by their trusted parent, uncle, aunt, family friend, family priest? Your lovely photos have a better chance of getting into the wrong hands in your own circle than out in the public! I'm from a small town in the Great Plains. 1950's, on her way to school, my classmate was stopped by a man in a car who wanted to show her calendar photos of naked women. She ran back home and told her mother, because SHE HAD BEEN TAUGHT AT HOME TO RECOGNIZE INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR. When I was about 50 I learned that another classmate, with whom I usually walked to school, had been molested by her father for many years, as had her sisters. They had never breathed a word about it to anyone. I do not believe that times are more dangerous, but I do believe it is vital to teach children what actions cross the line and that they must go to a trusted adult when they suspect someone is attempting to cross that line. I think it's important we, as a nation, get a balanced perspective on this issue, because right now I fear we are on a witch hunt. And by the way, my photo albums and my computer are chock full of images of my grandchildren, their friends, my cats and my dogs. And no, I'm not a zoophile.

Everyone,

I know the media likes to scare us - they turn mountains out of molehills but some of their tactic is based on fact. There ARE pervs out there that like children, there ARE parents out there that abused their children. Because of the small percent of people that do these disgusting things - it ruins it for the rest of us. Just like everything else in this country. A few morons screw it up and all of us have to pay.

I think back in the day the nude pictures taken by parents were for cute purposes. No harm there. The only people that ever saw them were you, the film developer, and your kids later on when you showed them to their boyfriends/girlfriends to embarrass them. But then the internet and ease of sharing came along.

Technology has changed our lives in so many ways, good and bad. It's not just about nude pics (which I do think they need to calm down about unless there is something actually happening or something very suggestive in the picture) that I think almost everyone has common sense not to post on the internet, but just pictures in general. Everyone walks around with the "It can't happen to me" mentality when really when it comes to little unthinkable things like this - it very well could happen to you so what's the matter with taking a few intelligent precautions? Especially when there are people out there that know WAY more about the internet and computers than you may know. I know it's a little "Law & Order: SVU" to think of things such as someone tracking you down through a social site - but they don't pull those stories completely out of thin air.

We shouldn't feed the trolls, we should make it known to them that this system they have won't work for them anymore.

As for the nude pics thing - I don't know what to do about that. Workers in film departments are being trained to pretty much overreact to any nude picture - I guess get a digital camera and home photo printer to avoid conflict over a harmless picture you took thinking it was cute?

Laced,

For you to suggest that I'm a child molester just because I'm gay is completely out of line, and completely off the mark. I really wish you were here to say that to my face. I'd give you a good taste of prison life, 'cause that's where someone with your attitude is undoubtedly headed.

As for the other folks who say that not keeping your child under a watchful eye at all times is just begging for disaster, again, you have a 1-in-50 chance of dying in a car wreck. So, if you ever let your child ride in a vehicle, you're a terrible parent who's recklessly endangering your children, as claimed in your very own reasoning.

People need to look at facts and figures, not sensationalist headlines, to determine the greatest risks to their children's safety and overall well-being.

Sorry you had to be targeted like that LJ. I agree with Henry--Laced 713 should be banned from the board. By the way Laced, in case you're reading this, in the 1950's my ex-husband was molested by his step-mother. So, does that mean that step-mothers are child molesters???

I wouldn't depend on Facebook's privacy settings to keep your pictures/information secure. The best way is to ASSUME that if it's on the internet, everyone can see it. Don't post pictures or information that you wouldn't want public.

I think the answer to that is to let your children try everything that they want to try, while keeping a constantly mindful eye on them.

I agree with PGH. "Back in the day" nude photos of your kids were shown only to people you actually showed them to in person. With the internet, you really have little control over who sees those pictures. It's almost the same as if you had made copies of them and posted them on every street corner. As many recent events have shown, even the privacy settings on social networks don't necessarily measure up. How many stories about this on FB have we seen lately? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with taking the pictures or showing them to anyone-the problem is when you have no control over who sees them.

As for those who insist that the world is not all that dangerous, etc, etc, that is very little consolation to people who have suffered because of dangerous people. I know a young child who was molested in her own back yard by her neighbor. Incidentally, this child HAD been taught about what was and was not appropriate touch; her molester was not an adult, and she was caught with her guard down.

As for Jim, am I a coward if I protect my children? What is brave about exposing them to abuse? I agree that kids can't be wrapped in bubble wrap or constantly monitored or never let out of sight, etc, etc. I agree in giving children increasing levels of freedom as they are able to handle it. But there is a HUGE difference between being a helicopter parent and taking sensible steps to protect your kids. There is a huge difference between putting them in a burka and displaying them naked on the internet. If people can't see that you are in serious denial.

Seen Too Much,

You make a valid point about the feelings of those who've lost their children to such terrible things. But, again, at the end of the day, children dying at the hands of molesters/rapists/murderers is far, far, far less frequent than children dying at the hands of their own parents, in accidents involving bath tubs, swimming pools, bicycles, vehicles, neighborhood dogs, family dogs, illness, lightning strikes, etc. Let's take into account all those parents' feelings over losing their children to such travesties, as well, and everyone take the necessary precautions to prevent our own children from suffering similar fates. That means no more car rides. No more family pets. No bath tubs or swimming pools. No bicycles. The list goes on for a while.

People are simply obsessed with sex, and they think, when they see a headline about a child being abducted, sexually assaulted and/or killed by a monster that that's all they should be concerned about with their kids, and that they need to lock their children in bunkers or bank vaults, never to be allowed to see the world around them and learn from and about it. Yet, all the while, there are far more dangerous things around them every day--things that are many times more likely to harm or kill them. Yet, it's just the child molesters and rapists they're worried about.

Seriously, kids might just be even less in danger these days than they ever were before, if only because of the same media that has parents so frightened. That media also lets those who would hurt children know that everyone will be looking for them if they hurt a kid, and the same fear that all this media is instilling in parents is also being instilled in those who've ever been tempted to harm a child. And let's not forget the advances in communications that make it possible to canvas the entire globe in the blink of an eye with notices of a missing child. The chances of recovering a lost or stolen child are greater than they've ever been, too.

I would actually trust the world with my child much more today than I ever would've in past generations, because they really are safer now than they've ever been. We all are, for that matter.

ok so you know, I'm not a bigot, I have gay friends, black friends, asian friends, and all. I'm very well educated. I should have elaborated that a gay person placing a post saying there is nothing to fear certainly seems suspicious even my gay friends would suspect such a thing. Statistically speaking most males molested are done so by a relative who usually is homosexual and, more often than not, hiding it. I should not have placed an attacking comment as much as explaining that I am extremely offended by anyone, especially someone who CAN be LOGICALLY associated with such activities being so lackadaisical and pushing an attitude about such a thing that could, if taken to heart, have a parent leaving their child vulnerable to a predator. It's not to say that Mr. Rhodes is a pedophile but that saying there is no need to fear could make him suspect. In fact anyone who would post that we need not guard our children from predators could be suspect! I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to my child. I need not be banned but I think Mr. Rhodes threatening sodomy (a taste of prison life) certainly proves my point and that perhaps he should be. I never threatened anyone nor actually said anything specific my comment left you all to draw your own conclusion of what I was insinuating. Perhaps I just meant he liked to play with children like children play but a parent would likely not let a gay man play with their child. Of course I did not I'll not make such a claim but you see my point. Henry, calling me illiterate uninformed scum seems to lack the ability to communicate more than anything rather than ask what I meant you assumed and attacked me. You do not know me and I'm obviously not illiterate nor uninformed and well If you want to call me scum I think that brings you down a little to pass such judgement on someone for one comment that you did not grasp the full intent of. I was certainly not saying that the lifestyle by nature makes one a pedophile my insinuation was that the lifestyle combined with a comment saying we need not guard our children against pedophiles makes one seem to be a possible pedophile. And Grandma Julie well by now you've read the rest of the post need I repeat once more? I think not. Sorry to offend you folks. But at least contrary to the trolliness you must have expected of me I'm willing to come back and explain what I meant and not go to name calling and insults as some of you have and I even apologize for the offensive way I stated the logical thought earlier. Let me put it this way- If someone, who openly admits they have a strong almost irrational desire for money (which doesn't make them a bank robber), advises a bank that they do not need security.wouldn't you suspect they may intend to rob the bank? If not then you are living in a severly complacent state of mind. The media may overhype things but that's no reason to undermine it's actual level of importance!

The best way is to ASSUME that if it's on the internet, everyone can see it. Don't post pictures or information that you wouldn't want public.

That sums it up clearly and concisely. I still haven't figured out why folks want to advertise their children to the world but to each his own.

"You can look at this photo, as long as you don't enjoy it too much."

What a bizarre concept.

Holy cats people. You are being ruled by fear! If a pedophile wants to find a child to molest, he/she does not need your pics to do it. I mean, come on folks. I completely understand being safe and all that good stuff but where do you draw the line? Are there a lot of sick people out there? Without a doubt. But, to think your kid is in greater danger because of pictures, well that's a bit cookoo! Your kids are always in danger, danger around electricity, danger crossing streets, danger danger danger. Watch your kids closely, know where they are and who they're with and teach them about these dangers instead of shielding them from them in the hopes that you can protect them from seeing the evil in the world. They're going to see evil, so why not give them a heads up and educate them on it? Worry about these things first and foremost, then worry about this other stuff if you must.

p.s. Laced - pedophilia and homosexuality have zero relation to each other. Ditch the myths and get with some more factual info. Pedophiles have a compulsion for KIDS.

Laced,

I don't know a gay person in the world who would look at my post and suspect me of being a pedophile or a child molester. That is purely your own ignorance and hatred of gays speaking. I'm not encouraging people to post naked pictures of their children online. I'm discussing a broader fear of the world so many parents seem to have these days. At no point did I make the suggestions you're claiming I did. You are simply so addled by your hatred of gays that your mind created such a post from thin air and attributed it to me, as anyone who reads back through all my previous posts in this thread will very clearly see.

You said, "That lifestyle combined with a comment saying we need not guard our children against pedophiles makes one seem to be a possible pedophile." You said it yourself right there that you assume I'm a pedophile because I'm gay. Yet, our lambasting you for saying that in your first post is why you decided to post again to try to lambast us, claiming we made unfounded assumptions about you. Honey, we didn't assume anything. We simply observed your behavior as it was, without embellishing our accounts of what we saw. It's you who made assumptions about me just for being gay. Are you, perhaps, mentally disabled? I find little other possible cause for such a severe disconnect in your reasoning.

Paranoid much??????

Yes, it's true that statistically kids are more in danger of being injured by cars, their parents, lightning (?). But don't parents take precautions in those area? Don't they use seat belts, car seats, tell kids not to go out in the middle of a lightning storm with a golf club, tell kids to report abuse? Should they not also take precautions on the internet?

Laced,

That didn't help. All it did was cement, in my mind, your inability to differentiate between homosexuals and pedophiles. And your inability to objectively view the statements made by others. At no point in his post did LJ promote not guarding your kids. At no point did he suggest parents shouldn't care for and raise their kids in the safest possible environment. His post was a cynical retort on how unbalanced some parents views regarding the appearance of safety. LJ's post was aimed at the propensity for parents to strive for an appearance of safety rather than safety itself. To go to extremes to protect them from dangers that are against long odds yet subject them, over and over again, to dangers that are common place in our lives is more than a bit incongruous.

As for your ability to divorce sexual preference from sexual deviancy - there appears to be no help. I have yet to find a way to convince people that are determined to be bigots that they are acting stupidly and basing their conclusions on flawed logic, if any logic at all exists. There is nothing about the LGBT lifestyle that allows any conclusions to be drawn regarding sexual deviance. No study has been done that shows the conclusions you proffer. You are, indeed, uninformed if you think being gay has any impact on pedophilia or sexual deviancy in any regard. Maybe not illiterate, since you were obviously able to read and digest mine and other posts. Scum, I still stand by that one. Apology be damned, the outlook you elucidated is exactly the outlook I surmised from your previous statement and I have no sympathy for it.

seen too much: I think that is exactly what LJ was getting at. We have scared parents so much that they are opting for the appearance of safety rather than actually trying to keep their kids safe. We've got parents going to extreme lengths to keep germs off kids hands but then leave them in the car alone while they run in and pay for their gas (it happens at least twice a year in MI alone, look it up).

We've become so obsessed with what might happen we've begun ignoring what can happen. If you want to keep your kid safe, please do. I encourage that. If you want to never take another picture of your child on the off chance that a hacker will break in to your PC and steal the pics then sell them to some pedophile, that's over the edge.

Think before sacrificing your kids childhood to the gods of "keep them safe".

I just find alot of it common sense.. when pregnant with my son (now 8) I didn't want to know the sex... avoided it like the plague.. was on the chart etc etc... during and ultra sound they are moving around I'm looking (just a big blur to me LOL) then it happened Tech: here is his leg knee and thigh... (move around).. Ooops either my child has 3 legs or is a boy.... :) The ultra sound picture of three legs was posted everywhere for my family and friends to see.. since there was a little arrow to his little extra leg with the caption ""look I'm a boy".... I thought it was cute. Can't wait to show hit future wife LOL... We watch home movies from when I was young with me, my two sisters and my brother all sharing the same bath!!!! lotsa bubbles.. lotsa fun

Melissa - I am not annoyed by any means. I like looking at the photos. I just get worried that posting hundreds of pictures can lead to too much information if their photos are not private and I, or their other friends, aren't the only ones looking at them.

Those pictures dont HARM ANYONE!!! LEGALIZE THEM!!! oh wait I sound like one of the moron weed lagalizers.... cuz there really is a difference between that and this... no really there is

L.J. Rhodes:
I hope you don't have kids!!!!!!!

AKRandy,

I'm sure you do. I'm sure it terrifies you to think I'd turn out well-rounded, well-educated, well-informed citizens who think for themselves, aren't easily misled into adopting/harboring unfounded beliefs, are fair in their estimations of others, basing such judgments solely on their actions and not their physical characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), holding little fear of the great big world and the people in it, assuming that the vast majority of people are inherently good and that it's still okay to trust, at least to some extent, even total strangers, because of that inherent goodness, etc.

Yes, someone who would say such a thing to me for what I've said about protecting one's children generally holds disdain for all the qualities I've listed that I'd do my damnedest to instill in my children. But, that's okay. My children would some day become your children's bosses, landlords, legislators, etc. You could thank me then for raising the kinds of people who would treat your children with the fairness, dignity and honesty you just failed to show me.

here's the thing.... in most cases that were brought to trial, like that of the boy taking a bath, and with his father, aaaaany moron, idiot, or imbescile can tell the diffrence between that, and kiddie porn. the fact the parents were iilegals has no bearing, cause they could have been here legally, or born here. the police, dss, the da, and everyone up and down the ladder should have been ashamed of themselves, icludeing the walgreens employee....all are not even close to the rank of idiot, or moron, and need a beating for being so.

“People could be arrested for [what we used to regard as] normal pictures,” says Adler.

because the world is filling with idiots, these people should not vote or breed!. What ever happened to common sense? I think if for example your a DA and you pursue a stupid suit and its comes out your an idiot, that common sense should have dictated there was no real case, you should be relived of your job. zero tolerance in school if an official suspends a student for lets say, bringing a Lego police officer to school (has a mini 2cm toy gun), they should be relieved of there job. if you don't have even a small amount common sense, your not smart enough to hold any kind of position that affects other people. How do these people even get these jobs?

Melissa,

Hey PGH: If being inundated with your friends' kiddo photos on your Facebook annoys you, then do what I do -- hide 'em from your newsfeed!

I would expect that a staff member of msnbc would have better online manners. Your comment was childish and hardly the example a staff member should be setting. I'm sure an experienced writer like you can find a better way to offer facebook advice to people, although it doesn't appear in your post that you ever intended to do that.

ok so I guess you didn't read clearly the part where I would suspect ANYONE who would downplay the need to protect our children from predators. sure I used different words but that was my whole point You are downplaying it LJ RHODES. I do not have a fear or hatred of gays you apparently missed the part where I have gay friends, heck my best friend in middle school was gay. I don't care what your sexual orientation is so lets just drop that one it merely gives you something to focus on other than the actual point of my posts. Apparently you didn't read the apologies or anything either. I won't sink to insulting speculations about why you do not seem to get my point. still no answer to that bank robber question.

Great! A family was ripped apart over irrational fear. This law-enforcement approach to illegal immigration has got to stop! We are using sledgehammers to swat flies! Does anyone care about how this boy will likely never see his father again because he has been deported?

As far as the rest of the fear-mongering, if the odds of being molested are 1:1,500,000, then the odds of it happening with a stranger are 10 times less.

Also, we don't know what all these sex-offenders are really guilty of. Sex with a girl who says and looks like an adult, but who turns out to be 16 is not the same as sex with a 4-year old. In fact, the vast majority of sex offences agaist minors are with teenage girls. Wrong, but not the same as forcible rape.

In spite of the media frenzy, I believe there are actually extremely few people who are sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children, fewer who act on it, and fewer still who actually try to lure or physically kidnap a child off the street. And most of the child kidnappings you hear about are custodial interference cases, not sexual exploitation.

Does anyone care about how this boy will likely never see his father again because he has been deported?

He's probably already back.

It's true the authorities need to use a little more common sense but we have to be careful about how we attack such a problem. We can't just let poeple come here illegally and then make loop holes for them to abide by. That would seem silly, almost liberal.

Laced,

I read every word you posted, trust me.

And, actually, I was saving my response to the bank robber question for any post you might come back with trying to once again claim you don't dislike gays or assume they're sexual deviants who just itch to prey on children. I knew you'd make another attempt, and I wanted to save this analysis of that part of your diatribe for its own post.

You gave an example of someone who is addicted to money and wants as much of it as possible who might not be a bank robber, but you wouldn't trust him having free-reign access to a bank's money, because the temptation might prove to be too much for him to resist. You compared gays to that person--people who are so depraved and addicted to sex that they can't be trusted not to give in to their urges and even prey on a child to get their fix if necessary.

Once again, you blatantly said you believe gays are child-molesters by their natures, because you think they're depraved sex addicts who will resort to desperate measures to satisfy their urges if given the opportunity.

Every single thing you've posted so far has only further established that you equate homosexuality with sexual depravity and a propensity for child-molestation. You've now dug yourself so deep there's no way you're going to climb back out of this one.

When MySpace came along, my daughters talked me into joining. I was "browsing" one day and browsed within a 20 mile distance from my zip code. I came across a profile of an elderly man who just had that "perv" look. Then I noticed that his "friends" looked awfully young to be on the site. I notified an administrator and when they got back to me, this dude was a convicted sex offender~

patA...

Good Comment. And thanks for being alert and reporting your concern regarding the strange myspace "friend" you noticed. We need more people like you who will take a minute to report a concern when they see something suspicious. I am saddened, too, that artistic photography now has to worry about this. Some of my favorite photos of my children when they were little are of them in the bathtub together, etc. I was always discreet about what was shown in the picture when taking the photos so as not to be embarrassing to them when they were older, but these days I would probably be afraid to take them anywhere to be developed. I have the most beautiful photo of one of my daughters with a friend's daughter when they are about three and four years old. It was taken after a day at the beach... they had taken off their sandy bathing suits to wash off in the lake, and were standing in the buff holding hands and looking out at the sunset over the water. It is taken from the back, with their ponytails draped over tan little backs with tan lines and white little bums, and is just an adorable photo. It is sad that these innocent artistic photography works can now be something to worry over, and I refuse to.

However, I would never post my children's photos on a face book or other public site...even covered head to toe in winter jackets and snow gear...there are just too many untrustworthy people out there to trust with any child photos with identifying information. I don't even have a face book page or other social networking site...I never have, and wish my kids didn't either. They are adults now, and all the young people their age communicate through those...and also post pictures of themselves and friends. I worry about it.

Henry, I thought the article was about posting pictures online-ie, in public where no one would need to hack into a computer to see them.

Re the couple who had the father deported over pics of the dad kissing the son. Apparently he wasn't kissing him on the head or the lips. He was kissing the child somewhere else; that's why authorities were called.

It does sound like the thing has gone overboard, but certain things do look suspicious. And there is more selling of porn than I think people realize or want to acknowledge. And I really don't get all these strong arguments and almost ridicule about people wanting to reasonably protect their kids. Are some of you porn traffickers yourselves?

Seen Too Much,

No, we're not porn traffickers. We're simply objective, reasonable, rational people who realize there are far worse dangers all around our kids that are completely overlooked or even ignored by so many of these parents who think that it's only pedophiles and other child predators they need to worry about, when, in fact, they've the least chance of being hurt by these people when you look at all the statistics regarding child injuries, deaths and other calamities.

Everyone's so focused on keeping their kids off the internet lest some stranger talk to them that they're forgetting that their kids are 30,000 times more likely to be killed in a car wreck, and they tote their little tots all over town in vehicles each and every day. I mean, seriously. If people are going to call out parents for posting pictures of their children on Facebook, then those same parents doing the calling out need to be called out for putting their own children in far greater danger almost every minute of every day.

My posts have been about fairness and ensuring that credit is given where due, including to parents who like to think they're better than others, when, in fact, they're just as bad if not worse. I know people don't like to hear when they're wrong, but as I said before, the numbers don't lie, so they can try to deny my assertions all they want. Those with enough reason to do their research will know which of us is right on this one.

Seen Too Much,

Also, did you know that it's a common tradition among Romanian women to kiss their infant sons' genitals and chant, "Grow! Grow! Grow!" in an (albeit misguided) effort to ensure their sons grow up to be well-endowed and virile, so that they might be over-reproductive men who can land any woman they want?

Beyond this belief that what they're doing works to make their sons well-hung, there's no sex involved. Should we also put all those mothers in prison? Of course, you'll have to convince Romania that the ways of the U.S. are superior to their own, which seems to be the general (albeit misguided) belief among Americans...that we're somehow morally superior to every other culture on Earth. But, in reality, we're practically still living in the Old West of the 1800's compared to most European countries.

I'm not saying that what he did with the baby wasn't done in a cultural context or that it was wrong, I'm just pointing out that the developer might not have known about that and considering American culture might have been suspicious. The reason the family was torn apart was because the guy was an illegal alien, not b/c of the picture.

Also, parents are well aware of the dangers of traveling in cars-why do you think they use car seats and seat belts? Why is it unreasonable to take precautions with everything you do whether it be in dangerous cars or on the internet?

Seen Too Much,

That 1-in-50 chance of dying in a car wreck takes into account wearing seatbelts and using carseats. It's all-inclusive. Again, I think you're missing the point I tried to make about peoples' obsession with the internet and those who use it, including themselves. The internet probably poses the least danger to those who use it when compared with all the other dangers all around us, children included.

Why write an article on posting pictures of one's kids on Facebook, instead of writing one on the dangers of vehicle travel, thunderstorms, family pets (even cats kill children in alarming numbers, whether through suffocation, contagion or other means), bicycle wrecks, sporting accidents, etc? This article makes the ill-informed masses believe their children are all going to be snatched right out of their very homes if their pictures are posted online by their parents, yet that's the least likely harm to befall them.

If the point was to scare parents, this article is just one in a long line of such scriblings to've done so. If, however, it was actually geared toward keeping children safe, it missed the mark by a long shot, since it failed to deal with much more common threats to their safety. But, I'm guessing the author isn't ignorant of this fact. He did it to increase readership, plain and simple. Not to actually offer advice to parents on truly keeping their kids safe from harm.

Rationality and reason don't seem to be common gifts among the majority of Americans. Either they never were, or their existence in our society ceased so long ago no one remembers them.

Why write an article on posting pictures of one's kids on Facebook, instead of writing one on the dangers of vehicle travel, thunderstorms, family pets (even cats kill children in alarming numbers, whether through suffocation, contagion or other means), bicycle wrecks, sporting accidents, etc?

There is actually an overabundance of information on how you can minimize the risk to your child of riding in a vehicle, avoid lightening, bicycle safety, etc. Why wouldn't we expect similar articles regarding publishing nude photos of children on the worldwide net?

Justme,

The article didn't just deal with nude photos. It also admonished that posting any pictures of one's children could put them at risk. But, given the facts about what dangers children face, this was a bit of sensationalist (read irresponsible) reporting, because it's instilling greater fear in parents than the topic truly warrants. I'm not saying the article, in principle, is wrong. But its handling of the topic needs to be tempered with information on any number of other threats to children's safety. It makes it sound as if sharing pictures of one's children on social networking sites isn't just irresponsible, but almost certain to lead to harm coming to those children. And this simply isn't true.

Parents shouldn't be made to be so afraid of exceedingly slim chances of harm to their children that they forget to deal with much more likely, immediate threats. Information overload can happen even to the most brilliant of people, parents included, so I'm simply trying to argue that, in at least this particular instance, they should take the article with a very large grain of salt.

L.J. Rhodes,

Thank you for your objective opinions and clear statements of the facts. I'd give you a million thumbs up if I could. I've had the same discussion with my sister and she was of the same mentality of those that are attacking you. I eventually had to just give up because she couldn't see the forest for the trees. I admire your determination. =)

L.J., Everything should be taken with a grain of salt and our society has gotten very good at being fearful of everything - including perfectly normal things. On this topic though yes I do think people who post loads of pictures of their kids on the 'net are not terribly wise in their choice. The one friend I have who does it is terribly naive about the security issues of Facebook.

Does it guarantee certain doom for their kid? Of course not. Are there predators out there who take advantage of the easy opportunity to surf for victims? Of course. There are loads of articles and info out there about how to teach your kid to be safe on the 'net and keep their info private.

The argument many have presented is that our kids aren't safe anyhow so why worry about it. Really?? I can't imagine taking that kind of lackadaisical about my kid. As far as posting pics of my kid - I have plenty enough stuff to watch out for without adding to the list. If I want someone to have a picture of my kid I will give them one.

I'm both a mother AND a sex offender parole officer. There is one issue that I think you are skipping over. It's not just that a sex offender might download a photo and then try to find/cause harm to that specific child (which is truly somewhat rare), it's the idea that sex offender would download the picture, print it, or (let's just say) "use" it in a way that no parent would ever want even their child's image used. This, sadly, is not at all rare.

So while it may not likely endanger your child (physically)to have his/her picture seen by a sex offender, it is VERY common that a sex offender will look at, print out, copy, manipulate, or otherwise "enjoy" pictures of random children he (or she) may find on line. I, for one, can't stand the idea of that child being my child.

EMB,

Sadly, there's no accounting for the depth and breadth of human sexuality/perversion. Some people are seriously turned on by a specific color, or perhaps a certain pattern of fabric (plaid, for example). You could post a completely clothed picture of your child, and he or she might simply be wearing an article of clothing that turns a person on, and that person will perv on the picture of your child after all. And, let's face it, if they're going to perv on any children's pictures, whether directly or through manipulating such pictures to appear to be something they originally weren't, it's going to be such folks as child actors and models, which can be found all over the internet.

What that person does on the other end when he or she looks at that picture is, ultimately, of no consequence to the person posting the picture, as long as it doesn't lead to that person actually coming for your child. We really do have to draw a line in the scope of our fears, and I think this is one instance where that line needs to be drawn.

If we all feared everything that could be, rather than just what is, we'd all have to completely shut down and become complete agoraphobes, because there's always some unseemly behavior possible in each and every person on Earth.

That's why it's so important to stick to facts and figures, rather than letting our minds constantly wander off into the deepest, darkest recesses of human behavior, looking for every potentially bad act we can conceive, then planning and living our lives around these mere possibilities.

Make sense?

I agree that its not a good idea --my niece will NOT put pictures online---but u don't need to go to other peoples fb pages I don't have strange family's pictures pop up when I am on fb!!

I have two nephews who were young and horsing around taking pics with a disposable camera. They took anal shots and lots of other crazy ones. The mom found the camera two years later and didn't know what was on it. She took it to Target to get developed. The parents were visited by the cops and the child protection Nazis faster than you can say Gestapo.
I believe in child protection but the government now has too much power and is too aggressive. The parents have no protection from false accusations.

Good grief, jkatze, did you HAVE to bring politics into this??!! What in the world does having voted for Bush have to do with this subject? There are plenty of political articles to voice your opinion on, try and keep the politics on those, please and thank you!!

The world isn't the same place it was when we 40 and 50 something folks were kids. That's a fact. I would much rather be over protective of my children and keep them alive than to lose one because I didn't keep an eye on them.

Oops...posted comment to the wrong thread.

Blue Rose, I disagree. The world is the exact same place it was 40 to 50 years ago. The difference is that you didn't know about this stuff happening, and the ones that knew usually kept silent. The media didn't report the stuff. Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it was not there.

People don't really change, only technology does.

jkatze: "No amount of vigilance is too much"? Really? Are you sure about that?

How about not letting your kid go to school? (There have been teachers that are pedophiles).

How about not taking your child to the Mall? (There have been children snatched from Mall parking lots).

How about not letting your child outside to play? (Kids have been taken from their own backyards).

How about not letting your kids near an open window?

How about keeping them hidden away from the "prying eyes of the public"?

"No amount of vigilance is too much"? Really?

Blue Rose, I disagree. The world is the exact same place it was 40 to 50 years ago. The difference is that you didn't know about this stuff happening, and the ones that knew usually kept silent. The media didn't report the stuff. Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it was not there.

Another difference is, we're about 100 million people stronger than we were in the 80's and 150 million stronger than the 1970's. That's a lot of people folks. Even if the percentage of pedophiles remained the same, the numbers have increased along with the population. In addition, we are also now living more condensed than before. More homes in a smaller area. The odds of more of them living around you compared with 25-30 years ago are greater. It's a shame it's come to this. Why can't we just take them out back and shoot them?

The world is the exact same place it was 40 to 50 years ago.

Not true at all. 40 years ago, there was no internet, no chat rooms, no online social networks, no e-mail, no flash drives, no digital cameras, no cell phone cameras. It was much, much harder for pedophiles to find victims and to distribute their filth. Technology has made it much easier for them, and much harder for parents to be vigilant, although to be honest, it seems not many parents actually try.

More proof that people don't change:

Why can't we just take them out back and shoot them?

Lets just go back to the Salem Witch trials, and do it all over again. Let see how many more innocent people we can kill.

And no, I am not defending pedophiles. People proven to be guilty should rot in jail, and should pay for their crimes. I say make them work too, pay for their own existence instead of leeching of society.

What we are lacking is common sense. Yes, we need to be vigilant, I totally understand jkatze trying to protect her kids. However, there is a fine line between being a good protective parent and being over-protective and paranoid. Common sense is going out the window in favor of crazy talk.

@flbikerchick: Yes before they would just sneak around taking polaroids and being very private. The kicker with the internet is that they can now be traced. My point was that human nature and the crimes commited by men have not changed, only the technology used for them

whats ina name......very good points.....

As far as I remember people took naked pictures of their kids years ago. They just didn't pin the pictures up on community bulletin boards, on telephone poles etc. Which, really, is what people posting their kids pictures are doing when they put it online. Years ago you'd share these pics with some family members, maybe your close friends not the entire neighborhood, town etc.

That said the example of the father being arrested and charged with child molestation in the article is an example of fear run amok.

the world is not the same,...30 40 years ago there was no internet,...30 to 40 years ago a kid could get molested with impunity...and no one would know or believe them if they told....30 to 40 years ago you could play out side and not worry that there was a convicted sex offender living next door (but of course there was,...you just didnt worry about it) now you can go online and find out that there are litterally thousands right now in your nieghborhood....1 in 6 men report having been molested as a minor child,..1 in 4 women,..while "actual" strangers comprise a fairly small number of these cases...one has to understand that the pedophile puts himself in a possition where he has acess to children...he may be your brother,..a teacher, a doctor, a policeman, a nieghbor,...and if they molested your child the odds are they molested someone elses...or they will molest someone elses...this is a very different world...media attention over these crimes have both a positive and negative impact, than 30 or 40 years ago...people want to fear the strange man hanging out near the playground,...but they dont fear the childs uncle who is showing an unusual intrest in the kid...and the uncle is more likely going to be the one who is molesting your kids right under your nose....putting nude photos of your kid online is, well, just plain stupid....pedophlies troll facebook and youtube contantly for these images,...they download them,..photoshop the faces onto pornographic images and then pass them around...and before you know it your kids face is all over the net...the last thing you want your kid to have to face is the humiliation of finding one of these images online...or discovering that pedophlies have been using them for self gratification....and while im not one to say that "all" homosexual men are pedophlies,...i would never let your adolescent or teenage boys alone one...even if he is someone you think you can trust...dont make the same mistake my parents made.

that is the exact point too... only an ignorant moron posts pics publicly online especially to these social networks that refuse to control security.... if you think i am wrong just browse to facebook.com and u will start seeing ignorant moron after ignorant moron......

Biker Chick, it was pretty easy for pedophiles to find victims back then because no one wanted to talk about it.

In my extended family one pedophile was able to abuse three generations of his family because cultural norms were to deny that it could happen, until my sister and I told people to keep their children away from him. The earlier victims didn't know how to stop it or where to turn for help without being stigmatized. Even though he's in his late 80s or early 90s, his adult male children are still afraid of him, even though he was abusing young females.

Okay so I'm gay,

Are you serious with that name, when you wrote this?

"...and while im not one to say that "all" homosexual men are pedophlies,...i would never let your adolescent or teenage boys alone one..."

So, never leave your daughters alone with straight men, either. Or, hell, don't leave your sons alone with straight women. In fact, we might as well take daughters away from parents when one of them is a straight man, and vice versa for sons.

Sexual orientation has no bearing on one's propensity for being a predator. Actually, I might be wrong on that, but not in the way you might think. If you look at FBI and Census Bureau statistics regarding the number of men in prison for child molestation, 97% of them are straight men convicted of molesting girls. Only 3% are there for molesting boys. Yet, considerably more than 3% of the overall population is gay...as much as 10% by some estimates. Do the math, and this works out to be that straight men are actually six times more likely to be child molesters than gay men. At minimum, they're twice as likely.

That said, the rest of your post about the majority of child molesters being someone close to the child and not a stranger is actually correct.

Stranger danger, my mule's rear end.... I know many women who were sexually molested. All of them were molested by people they knew well. In some instances relatives. I was molested by a good friend of my father's. We need to teach our children that their swimsuit zone is hands off to EVERYONE. Period. We also need to teach our children that someone elses swimsuit zone is hands off too. They shouldn't allow someone to make them touch anything on their body they wouldn't allow to be touched on theirs. I speak from experience. These nice 'uncles' that molest little kids are always the kind of people kids really love to hang out with. They are fun, and oh, so concerned. They plan fun games and do fun stuff. And then slowly, they let their hand linger just a little longer than they should on a child's body..... They don't do this suddenly. It's a gradual process.

Our children are at a greater risk from that nice 'uncle' than of some nebulous stranger on the road. All that being said I don't post pictures of my kids on line. And when my kids were itty bitty I never took some pictures because I was afraid of some maniacs calling me a pedophile because my son stood buck naked in a cooking pot at the glorious age of 2. I've never understood America's fear of naked bodies. I mean people think a breast with a baby attached to it is too sexy and needs to be covered up.

As to taking pics of your kids and printing them at home keep this in mind. All that needs to happen is that someone who is pissed at you calls DHS and accuses you of molesting your children. At that point, after the raid, even the most innocent 'nakey' pic of your toddler eating cereal becomes 'evidence'. Maybe I am paranoid but frankly we just read an example of a family torn apart by this in the article preceeding this discussion. when I needed to take some almost naked pics of my 7 year old daughter for her doctor to see (medical issues) I made sure I told Walgreen this ahead of time so they wouldn't freak out and call the cops.

As a father of five and a grandhather of seven I think that many of you people are so paranoid that I wonder how you get through the day. And to Henry what the hell does Fox News or Glenn Beck have to do with this vine?

Just one thing Treese; the male children that are still afraid were probably abused too, not just the females - and they probably are in denial - or may not even be able to remember.

If cops came to my door like you described I would shutter at about 1/500 of a second, just for clarity.

NH Tom-896720: If you've ever seen Fox or Beck you'd recognize the fear-mongering as a classic tactic. It's so prevalent that Beck and/or Fox are now almost synonymous with "Fear-Monger". But you do make a point in that all media does it. Every one of them; AP and Reuters too. Fear-mongering has become the de riguer method of delivering news. It's sad.

Henry,

They finally caught on to the fact that fear sells. It's worked for organized religion for millennia. Why the press didn't figure that out sooner is beyond me.

ok LJ Rhodes, Obviously you want someone to villify. No matter my explanation you don't get the point that I'm not saying all homosexuals are pedophiles but that many pedophiles are homosexual (still not nearly all). even "Okay so I'm gay" says "and while im not one to say that "all" homosexual men are pedophlies,...i would never let your adolescent or teenage boys alone one...even if he is someone you think you can trust...dont make the same mistake my parents made" and yes you shouldn't leave your daughter alone with straight men either. Fact is even if it's not forced, coersion is a mthod also employed for teens and makes them think it's their decision. either way at this point it becomes obvious that even though I was bicurious in highschool and fooled around with a guy you will still try to twist my post into some gind of anti gay slur. you almost seem to want to have more people hate gays and be bigots you can villify. Perhaps it makes you have that same nice warm self righteous feeling christians have when they bash you for being gay. I don't have all the answers but I know this much. You have proven yourself to be an ignorant fool focusing on making people seem below you in your posts while downplaying important issues. I know I'm not a bigot and I know what i meant in my posts. You cannot discern my meaning because you are the one blinded by hate and fear only seeing what further backs your arguement. I do not need nor want any amount of understanding from someone with personality flaws such as yours. There is enough negativism in the world without me being concerned with your opinion of me. Happy straight bashing you pessimistic nut!

oh and as far as those jailhouse fbi stats it doesn't take into account that as much as 90% of boys who are molested never come forward because there is such a heavy stigma on it(especially the boys being afraid people will think they are gay) so those numbers really only relate to prosecuted offenders and have no standing in the real world where so many victims suffer in fear that they'll be to blame for what was done to them and so many more criminals go uncaptured.

Laced,

I didn't villify anyone. You did. I simply called you out for it, especially when you did so based on total lies and misinformation. And you're still doing it. There's simply no reasoning with you, because you apparently lack the ability to. So, go on with your white-hood-wearing, cross-burning, torch-carrying anti-gay parade. When your robes catch fire, don't come crying to me to put you out, 'cause I wouldn't even pee on you to help you.

I hope someday that L.J.Rhodes and Laced713 can just get along.

I wish they'd just trade email addresses and continue their race/gay discussion somewhere else that isn't a forum about children & the social media.

They finally caught on to the fact that fear sells. It's worked for organized religion for millennia. Why the press didn't figure that out sooner is beyond me.

what do you mean "finally"? the press has lnown that for at least a century, and the press of the mid to late 19th were blatant and obvious about their biases, and would happily tell any lie to get their sales going, and to push their (more often right than left if you actually study history) political agenda

Danwill,

I'd say I stand corrected, ad you're absolutely right about how long sensationalist journalism has been around, but my comment wasn't meant to be historically accurate so much as correlationally accurate, with a twist of anti-organized-religion humor. ;-)

well in that case, point taken :)

The pedophiles count on people minding their own business. So do the gang bangers, drug dealers, Car thieves, rapists etc etc. Yes there is a big difference between bath time family photos/ art photos and a photo of a child being molested it may not always be clear. The concerned citizen @ Walgreen's notified the police. The police did not come to the Walgreen'sand demand to see all the photos they had in some kind of fishing expedition. So why the paranoid anti government ramblings?

to the repubs and some dems limited gov means every man for himself except where they see an opportunity to witch hunt. the evil people are making good [that which was created straight from god] appear evil and evil [ new world order destruction of environment] appear good.

Thanks to digital cameras and pritners that can print studio quality photos, parents can take and print all the artistic photos they want, for their family to cherish. Don't post them online!

The bigger issue here is society's increasing move towards Victorian/Puritanical "values". The human body is not somethign to be ashamed of. I hate to think that someday the few places left in America where one can be publicly nude (Sandy Hook, NJ, Haulover Beach, FL, etc.). I am very used to adult campgrounds, etc., but the first time I went to Sandy Hook, NJ, I was a little nervous about being around (and revealing myself to) naked kids. But it took only a few minutes to acclimate, and relaize that it is HEALTHY for the parents to teach their kids that naked bodies or photos are not "dirty" unless YOU make them that way!

That being said, there are a lot of pedophiles and other pervs out there that could bring harm to your loved ones, so use discretion and don't post revealing photos of yoru kids online!

It IS my business, okc, if anyone parent, or otherwise, is contributing in any way to pedophilia. These vermin feed off those 'cute' pictures.

Until sexual abuse of a child is made a capital offense--and the sentence carried out--we must make do with what is at hand to protect all children. That includes keeping the I-sphere free of innocent pictures that abet vile perversions.

Absolutely. See my earlier post.

Tired_of_Extremists, your comment is in 'left field'.

YOu say you want, "limited government" but the minute something happens we're screaming for them to do something about it and wondering why they're not moving fast enough. "Sigh"

jkatze: "These vermin feed off those 'cute' pictures."

So now I can't even take cute pictures of my kids? Because you don't want some perv to look at them? At what point are you going to let your child experience anything? I just hope I'm not responsible for supporting the mentality of a child that has no coping mechanism for dealing with the real world.

You are going too far. To think that any representation of a child-like being is too much to post online is too far. You must be Beck and Limbaugh's right-hand fear-monger.

Henry - There is absolutely no problem with taking cute pictures and putting them online - the biggest thing is you should take a precaution to limit it to "Friends only" viewing and such because you don't know who'd coming across your page.

jkatze, face it, you will always be a fearful little nobody

cowering behind your computer screen and terrified by all those "bad people" out there, be they imagined pedophiles, evil muslims, horrible gay people, terrible black people, ravening communists, etc. etc. etc.

you are so terrified that you are willing to throw innocent people to the wolves to make sure you "get them all". you are the one that has the real mental problem

get an effing grip on reality, someone messes with your kid, you deal with the scum. stop demanding that the government do it all for you

PGH: The problem with that is it's a measured and sensible response. As such people like jkatze will equate it with weakness and lump it into the same basket as calling up convicted pedophiles and inviting them over while you run to the store.

I'm not arguing against being protective. I'm arguing against being over-protective. There is a practical limit to how much care can be taken in any given situation. At some point, and this point is a personal limit, you will have gone too far. It's that propensity to go too far that I have an issue with.

Henry, et al. take the pictures!!!! Do NOT under any circumstances put them on the internet. And I'm not an up-to-your-neck-and-down-to-your-toes Victorian. Let your kids run around naked! (you get to clean up the pee and poop-haha.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of these. However, and I'm 57, technology HAS intruded. Not posting pictures on the internet is an easy thing.

Long before the internet, I knew a little child, really just a baby, 18 months old, who had gonorreha. Long story, including this baby was under the 'protection' of child protective services. But I can tell you I would move mountains to protect just one little one from the horrors of pedophilia. And if my grandchildren were ever posted nude on the internet I'd string my children up by their ... uh ... fingernails.

jkatze

It IS my business, okc, if anyone parent, or otherwise, is contributing in any way to pedophilia.

Tell you what...you worry about your kids and I'll worry about mine.

"So now I can't even take cute pictures of my kids? Because you don't want some perv to look at them? At what point are you going to let your child experience anything?"

The point is, Henry, how do YOU feel about some perv looking at them? No one cares if you take cute photos-great, in fact, who doesn't? They care about pervs looking at photos of ANYONE's cute kids because the pervs mean harm to those kids. Surely you can see the danger. What is it exactly that you want your kids to experience that they could not experience by not having nude photos on the internet?

seen too much: I didn't say nude photos. I said cute photos. The situation promoted by jkatze is that taking "cute" photos is out of line for a responsible parent. I believe the quote was "Those vermin feed of those 'cute' pictures."

It is this expansion of wariness that I and others are warning against. We start out with the sensible (if not redundant, I would hope) admonishment that posting nude or semi-nude pics of your kids on line is a bad idea. Fine, taken at face value I can support that (I wonder to myself why it has to be pointed out but...) We have now gotten to Cute pictures are used by pedophiles to pleasure themselves. How much longer before the pedophiles hack into our PC and take the pics so now it's best to not take any pics?

There is a line that you can cross where paranoia and cloisterism lives.

Henry - Yeah there is a different between protective (reasonable) and over-protective (usually unreasonable) and to all the people saying we are worrying too much and stuff - why wouldn'tyou want to just click the "Friends Only" button to keep your photos to yourself and friends? Why is that a big deal? The internet is a crazy world in its self and we shouldn't exactly be scared of it, but definitely wary. I think the people freaking out must not have kids. I don't have any but if I did I would not be parading millions of pictures online for everyone to see. Maybe my friends, of course, but not random people. Your kids can be kids and do whatever they want or you can take them wherever you want - there is nobody saying they can't be kids or have freedoms. But as a parent you could be risking your child by posting their picture for anyone to see. Like I said - recognizable locations in pictures or pictures in front of your house may not be a good choice for public viewing. This is not being crazy or "fearful" at all - it's being reasonable and safe!

why wouldn'tyou want to just click the "Friends Only" button to keep your photos to yourself and friends?

Actually that's no guarantee either. I emailed a pic of my little one to a close friend. A few weeks aftershe posted it with pics of her kids online, it finally occurred to her maybe she should mention it to me. She has it listed for friends only but some of the people on her friends list aren't people I would give access to any online albums I had. She doesn't understand why I'm not on Facebook and don't want to be. Whenever a security issue comes up regarding Facebook I tell her about it but she always dismisses it as pure silliness.

The main problem is this nation is turning into one where you're guilty until proven innocent... and there are no repercussions for law enforcement or agents of the state who conduct malpractice.

That is a shame.

Good point Mark. Particularly with this type of allegation they really should be made to be more discreet about investigation an accusation so that they are not ruining innocent lives.

I would think it rather obvious the difference between actual child porn and tub time pictures. I think it's pure stupidity to post the latter online but it sure as hell shouldn't be illegal to have some of one's own kid(s).

The trend toward a 'mob mentality' is a reaction to 'guilty until proven innocent'.

It's as Nostradamas described, a topsy turvy world where the innocent are the guilty, not the perpetrators. Mans laws supercede Gods laws, it's all backwards. Ok, back to the t.v. Tuning out now.

Do pedophilic photographers take their illegal photos to Walmart for developing? Seriously?

Ah jctoo, my sentiments exactly. Unfortunately, the intelligence level in America seems to be on the decline.

And you are intelligent with your redundant use of "tad bit"??? This whole blog is hysterical and full of hysterics. I hope none of you sleep at night with all your fears dancing in your heads.

Karino, until we live in a society where people will treat all others like people on Facebook, then jctoo and jkatze are right.

In this instance, "bit" was the noun, and "tad" was the adjective used to qualify the noun.

Yes, you can use "tad" as a singular noun as well in other circumstances, but in this sentence it was used as an adjective, and thus the sentence was not redundant.

If you want to flame others for writing with redundancies, then how do you explain your sentence, "This whole blog is hysterical and full of hysterics"? You said the same thing, twice.

Why have the grammar police reared their ugly heads?

Stay on topic, please.

My father was an english teacher.....this stuff has been drilled into my head for 30 years!

I'm only clarifying, not trying to ride anyone's tail here.......

Besides, I must throw my opinion in here. Since this blog (and countless others) are public domain, and since they are appropriately used for intelligent discourse (usually), I feel it is very important that people make an attempt to utilize proper english grammar and mechanics. The occasional typo or punctuation error will not cause any general affront, but when someone writes in with horrific sentences that become hard to read, then it becomes difficult to take them seriously. I have a great respect for our language, and to use it with skill allows to author to effectively state their argument. I generally expect this when reading a public blogsite.

Okay, Linda.......Back to the topic!!! ;p

Whether people are stupid or not for posting a picture like this...

... do they deserve to have their lives ruined or lose their kids... even if they are ultimately cleared.

I say "no".

People used to be innocent until proven guilty... but not in a 24/hr news cycle... and not when law enforcement and agents of the state suffer no repercussions for performing malpractice.

I'm usually a stickler for proper English grammar and spelling, too, but I thought that, as in another forum I had the misfortune to venture into, this thread was going to turn out to be another thrilling episode of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.":)

In my family's photo albums, there are several "baby bath-time" photos of me and one of me at 3 or 4 years old (having escaped my mom's clutches!), as naked as the day I was born, running around the backyard and shrieking, "Andale!, Andale!, Arriba! Arriba! I'm Speedy Gonzalez! The fastest mouse in all of Me-hico!"

(I was an early talker - and I haven't shut up yet!lol!)

"Back in the day" (the early-to-mid '60s), virtually everyone had the "baby bath-time" and "bare butt on a bear skin rug" photos and no one ever accused our parents of molesting us.

Now, however, we're a society of neurotics who see sex in everything - even in "baby bath-time," "bare butt on a bearskin rug" and buck-naked me running around the backyard photos - because there is sex in everything! From toddler beauty pageants (which should be outlawed, in my less-than-humble opinion), to designers (who need psychiatric help, in my less-than-humble opinion) who create hooker-quality clothes for our tween-age - and younger! - girls, to the films, television shows and books we read, sex is in-your-face 24/7/365. At the same time, every news outlet is telling is that we should be afraid - very afraid - because there's a sex offender around every corner, just waiting to make our children their next victim.

I know. I'm rambling. Happens when I have too many ideas floating around in my brain at the same time!

So this, unfortunately, has led to well-intentioned but overzealous store employees contacting local law enforcement, parents being charged with child molestation and children being taken away from their families solely on the word of someone who wasn't even there when the pictures were taken in the first place!

As to whether it's prudent to post photos of our kids on FaceBook or MySpace, my answer is "No." I would go as far as saying it is never prudent to post pictures of anyone in our families - even ourselves! - on FaceBook or MySpace. TOO MUCH INFORMATION - that will come back and bite you in the butt someday!

(Like I said, my photos are in my family's photo albums - where they belong!)

OMG! I am really old! Someone on another forum asked what "Andale! Andale! Arriba! Arriba!" - I wanted to get the spelling right, Indy Patriot! - meant - because she used to watch Speedy Gonzalez as a kid!

Indy Patriot:

I'm usually a stickler for proper English grammar and spelling but, after what I saw on another comment board that I had the misfortune of venturing onto, I was afraid that this thread was going to turn out to be another thrilling episode of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader"!:)

Back to the topic!

In my family's photo albums - the ones that needed those gross-tasting (worse than envelopes used to be!), sticky black corners to mount the photos on the pages - there are at least two of the obligatory "baby in the bathtub" pictures and one picture of me, at either 3 or 4 years old, running around the backyard wearing nothing but a smile as I shrieked, "Andale! Andale! Arriba! Arriba! I'm Speedy Gonzales, the fastest mouse in all of Me-heeco!"

When I was a little kid, in the early-to-mid 60's, it seemed like everybody had the "baby in the bathtub" and "bare bum on a bearskin rug" photos somewhere in their photo albums (though I doubt that anyone but me had the "running around the backyard as naked as the day I was born shrieking that I was Speedy Gonzales" photo!) and no one would even think to contact local law enforcement because they thought our parents were molesting us.

Unfortunately, that's the kind of society we live in now. We have been conditioned to see sex in everything - because there is sex in everything. From toddler beauty pageants - which should be outlawed, in my less-than-humble opinion - to designers - who need psychiatric help, in my less-than-humble opinion - who create hooker-appropriate clothes for our tween-aged - and younger! - daughters, to the movies and television shows we watch and the books we read, sex is in-your-face, 24/7/365. At the same time, however, we are being told to be afraid - be very afraid - because there's a sexual predator around every corner just waiting to make our children their next victim - and that sexual predator might be us!

That's why well-meaning, but overzealous, store clerks will now contact local law enforcement when they suspect a sex crime has been committed. That's why parents, who took just an innocent photo of their spouse kissing their naked baby, will be accused of molesting their child and arrested and have their child taken away.

As to whether it's prudent to post photos of our children on the Internet, my answer is, "No." Then, again, I'm the type that thinks it isn't prudent for photos of anyone in our families - even us! - to be posted online. It's TOO MUCH INFORMATION that will come back and bite you on the butt someday.

Karino

And you are intelligent with your redundant use of "tad bit"??? This whole blog is hysterical and full of hysterics. I hope none of you sleep at night with all your fears dancing in your heads.

Karino ... um ... well ... golly gee willickers ... don't ya' think you're being just a tad bit puerile?

Linda-130852, will they get it?

I tend to think this must be something that is purely a United States issue. While vacationing in the Caribbean this year I noticed many of the European and South American families vacationing at our resort let their young children (mind you not school-age) run around on the beach naked. It was pure, simple - just kids being free and having fun. Of course, I wondered what happened without the diapers on, but whatever. I can only imagine that many of the tourists from the States were horrified. I wish that here we wouldn't have to be so afraid of everything.

Unfortunately, it is the abuse of others with regards to your pictures of your children that comes into question. I think that the majority of people wouldn't view the parent as being the perp. But, someone else looking at those pictures could be the pedophile and that is where the problem lies.

We in the USA remain true to our Puritan roots. It is sad but true on the whole we think of the body as obscene and to be hidden. Frankly I'm surprised we bathe and shower in the nude. We didn't always)

ADS, what is the rate of sexual exploitation of children in Europe and South Africa?

jkatze: We're on the Internet - look it up. I've seen studies that say 10% - 20% of children in Europe have suffered some form of abuse. (http://ec.europa.eu/news/justice/100329_en.htm)

And I've seen studies that say 16% - 25% of children in the U.S. have suffered some kind of abuse.(http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/NCPCSE_NationalPlan.pdf)

So, given that the population densities are roughly similar, what do you suggest we hide our kids from now? Studies that might disagree with their world view?

What you don't seem to understand is that pedophilia is not an impulse but a mental trait. There is nothing you can show a rational adult that will enable them to hurt a child. It's not in their mental makeup. There is little we can do (including chemical and physical castration) that will dull the longing of a pedophile.

Noncomformist: I think, given half a chance, at least half of this group would ban nursing altogether! They seem to have a problem separating sex from nudity. Does anyone besides me ever think of how our "good Christian missionaries" went to Africa and told the tribal peoples there that they should cover their bodies? Is this not reminiscent of a story in Genesis?

The concerns of all posters like Grandma Julie are important. People need to be educated about the influence of our Victorian and Puritanical past.

However, it is foolish to make this more important than protecting children.

I guess it would be your problem if said perv can figure out where you and your kids live from the pictures and decides to try sexual assault in person.

Otherwise, I agree. Nudity shouldn't be a crime. And nudity does not equal sex.

Sadly, the people who are currently screaming the loudest about "getting government out of our lives" also tend to be the ones most likely to want to keep government interfering with whether or not you and your kids can wear clothes, and in what goes on in the privacy of your own home and bedroom (between consenting adults).

How are our liberties being limited? No one has said that you can not take pictures of your naked child - this article is discussing the fear of others downloading and busybody photo developers that brought the attention to the authorities.

You said it just right Linden Boy. We need to look to our european neighbors. Nudity is NOT AN ISSUE!!

lindenboy said some things right. But his comment 'who cares . . .' indicates just 'one short of a six pack'.

@Lindenboy:

So it's totally OK with you if someone sees your child's picture online and decides to make the fantasy a reality?

- Or are you talking about everybody else's children?

I feel it should be noted that any picture can be modified on the net. A predator can take that photo of a 6 year old in a dress to her ankles and lace to her chin and use programs to modify it to show her wearing whatever gets the perv off. I agree that posting photos that have distinguishable landmarks in them is not a good idea since people could track down where you live, but I also have to agree that paranoia has gotten the better of most parents. I also agree that putting naked pictures of your kids online is not a bright idea by any means, but feel that the innocent bathtime photos that people want to get developed at Walgreens should be seen as just that....Innocent. I have those pictures of my oldest son, but not of my younger two as by the time they were born(big age gap), I knew that I would have CPS knocking at my door over something that should be nobody's business but me, my family and any future girlfriends I wanted to use the photos to embarass them with. Parents should not have to censor their pictures in fear of what some nasty perv might possibly see in it that would turn them on. Kids playing in the bath is cute. The bubbles on their faces, the toys bobbing in the water, the look of sheer joy at playing and splashing...those are all things I would love to have on film for my 2 youngest so I could look back and remember when they were sweet and innocent and a bath could inspire such joy...but I can't have those memories because our society is so frikkin warped in their attitudes towards nakedness and so fearful of the mythical predator lurking beneath every bed. Sheesh!

As for the websites that show you where "pedophiles" live in your neighborhood...did you know that if you are arrested for public urination you go on the sex offender list and will show up on most of those websites? Any form of "public indecency" is listed as a sex offender on some of those websites that are supposed to show you where pedophiles live. Also, it should be noted that when the 17 year old boy has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend and her parents press statutory rape charges against him...he too goes onto that list. My point being that those websites can be misleading and make parents feel like they are surrounded by pervs when in reality they are more likely surrounded by people who got rowdy at a party and peed in someones bushes or showed their boobs at Mardi Gras and got arrested for it.

There are sick people in the world. I know this and I talk to my kids all the time about being aware of their surroundings and knowing what is and is not appropriate from not just strangers but friends and family as well. I also try my best to keep the lines of communication open between me and my kids as I feel this is the best line of defense against them getting into all kinds of trouble. Common sense is a fast fading value and I for one sorely miss it here in America. The story relayed in the article about the innocent dad and his baby just proves that to me. We have landed at a sad place when a dad can't kiss his baby's belly and have a picture of it developed without fear of having the child ripped from his loving parents and an investigation started into their motives for taking said picture.

Actually, in most states, the comment you made about boyfriends and girlfriends is no longer true. If there is less than a 3 year age gap, only the underage girl could seek to prosecute (for example, if she claimes it was not consensual). Her parents can not press charges in this instance. Most states refer to this as a romeo & juliet law.

I'd want to see what's on the hard disk of the Walgreen's tech. If the perversion isn't in the mind of the father, it must be in the mind of the tech who was developing those pics.

We had a customer that took pictures of their child during a bath, and the "bearskin" pose. The local processing store - called the cops, they were charged with child pornography, the judge later dismissed the charges, but the damage had already been done (she was a teacher). Lost jobs, reputation, and months and months and legal fees fighting the charges.

The private photos stopped being private when posted on Internet or taken to the developers. It is the 21st century folks, ever here of digital cameras? Who still uses film? Most of these cases are caused by well meaning but off base people. But then again plenty of idiots do film themselves committing crimes. Like it or not folks perverts can make a lot of money sellin kiddie porn. It is a commodity like drugs and illegal.

There is one detail that is missing from the story. Although the photo processed by Walmart was taken during an innocent situation, the father was actually kissing the baby's penis. At least that is what was reported in our local news at the time. I can see why the photo technician was alarmed. According to reports, the genital kiss was a cultural misunderstanding. Once the details of the story behind the photograph came out, and pedophilia was ruled out, I believe authorities moved too slowly restoring custody of the child to the parents.

Ali - that's a big piece of info left from MSN (not surprised) but how was pedophilia ruled out? I don't think parents have any reason what-so-ever to kiss a child in those spots at all. Ever. That's just creepy.

Just re-read the "Cultural misunderstanding" part...what culture does that?

yeah Ali, that's just disgusting.......poor kid.

Is #8.4 a good example of trolling?

PGH, a greater world-cultural awareness on your part would help to understand Ali's post. No one here is apologizing for pedophiles, and we certainly would not condone any acts thereof. But please understand that in some cultures (obviously less Puritannical than ours), a simple innocent kiss to the genitals (or region) signifies a blessing or imparting of wisdom and fertility to the child. Just as we may kiss the forehead of a child to impart our own blessings, other cultures have different ways of doing things. It only becomes a problem when it is an act of malevolence, or explicitly contrary to the social norms of that particular society.

Did you know that some tribal cultures have new mothers squirt milk on their children, for the purposes of blessings? (In a ritualistic way, mind you.) Or that some cultures have ritual periods in which the adult inhabitants become promiscuous and mate with other members, other than their spouse? The manner in which it is depicted is a function of the cultural norms. We obviously feel these things are wrong because they are not an intrinsic part of our culture.

Of course, that's not to say that I condone all cultural activities, either. For example, despite the tradition that has persevered for a thousand years, I would still not condone the act of male or female infibulation. I strongly advocate against circumcision in our country, as it provides nothing beneficial to the child and only causes them pain and agony, but let's not forget that that is a widely accepted practice in our country!! (And trust me, I'd rather my parents lay a few innocent kisses on my penis as a baby, rather than have 2/3rds of my sexual nerve endings barbarically cut off without anesthesia!)

So, my main point is that what we consider to be anathema to our moral values, becomes somewhat fuzzy when taken in the context of another society. So long as no material harm (physical/emotional/etc) comes to the child, then we must accept other norms as appropriate.

well, indy patriot....since you put it that way........you know.....Jesus did say, which is funny when you think about it......the Jews are throwing him rocks, he says to them...."hey, you guys follow the laws of moses, and he cuts you guys to pieces, in circumcisions and such, and im over here healing you guys, and you want to throw rocks at me" ay caramba.......

Sorry, Dawn, but I'm not understanding your post. Please clarify.

Mid-comment I read the thing about the cultural dismissal. To me, an American, it's weird; but I wondered what culture would do that, thank you for letting me know - I had never heard of something like that. Creepy to me but if that's their thing, then hey.

Somehow Indy Patriot-1934313, it seems that you are also trolling. Anyway, I am somewhat familiar with the field of anthropology, and can only hope that you are writing the truth.

Besides, I do hope that everyone can remember that cruelty is not cultural.

No, no, not trolling.....I have more respect for the discourse of ideas and opinions here than to simply be trying to agitate other posters.

And I agree, cruelty is certainly NOT cultural. If certain cultural traditions, however strange to us they may seem, do not harm the child in any way (remember, social harm is only a function of the local norms), then I cannot speak ill of them. Other traditions that involve warrantless pain or mutilation are not condoned.

I recall reading about the situation, and I don't remember anything about a "cultural difference". The article I read (sadly the link is long gone because this was a while ago) indicated that the charges were ultimately dropped because it was just the framing of the picture that made it *appear* as if her were kissing the little boy's penis, when in fact he was kissing the boy's belly. We've all seen how angles can be used in trick photography to make something look like something else, and as I understand it this was just accidental "trick" photography.

That said, the opposing points in the debate seem to be thus: 1) We, as Americans, have the ultimate authority over ourselves and our possessions, including how we raise our children, and the government has no business in telling a parent what they can or cannot do (provided no harm comes to the child); and 2) Posting such innocent pictures on-line provides easy access to "fuel" for the pedophiles who are (apparently) waiting in the wings to snatch up and abuse your child.

I would like to point out that the more well-reasoned argument is the first one, for the following reasons. First, providing no harm is being done, the government has no business telling me what I can and cannot do. Second, a pedophile will gratify him- or herself using whatever is available that provides the "stimulation" they are seeking, whether it's watching kids play at the park or the mall while fantasizing, viewing innocent pictures of nude and semi-nude children, or viewing hardcore child pornography. Given that at least 1 of the other 2 is easily available, the likelihood that posting the pictures on-line "enables" the pedophile is of base. As drug addict will find the drugs they crave whether or not said drugs are easily accessible or not (remember alcohol prohibition? *and please don't accuse me of comparing child molestation to alcohol, because I'm talking about the addict, not the "drug" of choice*). Third, a child molester is not likely to take the time to deduce where a child is located using pictures in order to snatch your child. The vast majority of molestation and kidnapping occurs between "known parties". A "snatcher" would go for the child of convenience, unless there is something that specifically draws the predator to *just your child*, in which case, pedophilia is the least of his malfunctions.

If you want to post pictures on-line, or have them processed at a photo lab, then you need simply be aware of the possible repercussions. The government tends to take the stance now of "guilty until proved innocent" by advertising all the horrible things you (allegedly) did, with the news media making it the story du jour, and then it's impossible to get a fair trial in the court of public opinion. Simply show a person's picture the the caption "child molester", and you have ruined a person's life forever. Some people will believe your innocence, but plenty enough people will simply believe that you were able to beat the charges on some technicality, and will always distrust you. It's a sad world where people have to be concerned about doing perfectly innocent things that other people disagree with (think the forced "outings" of closeted gay soldiers by people who find out either at best by accident, or, more often, by snooping).

I was able to find a link to one of the original articles about the Walmart photo case. http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-pictures-flagged-walgreens-deportation/story?id=10241066

Quotes from the article:

"Prosecutors have cleared Sergio Diaz-Palomino and Alma Vasquez of any wrongdoing after authorities questioned family photos in which Diaz-Palomino is seen kissing the face, buttocks and genitals of their 9-month-old, American-born son."

"Diaz-Palomino's criminal attorney, Ken Combs, said the pictures in no way represented a sexual act and that it is a cultural tradition to kiss the babies everywhere as a sign of affection."

exacerbates.

Either is appropriate in this instance, but thank you for taking the time out of your day to "correct" me.

Sorry, I thought I had conquered that bad habit of correcting people. Anyway, I agree with your comment - if people are willing to go to the extreme of stealing packaging from underwear just to get their sick thrill, then there is nothing we can do to stop them, short of killing them and, well, that's an entirely different argument there. We can't all get inside our fear bunker to try to avoid every evil out there, especially when the evils are multiplying more and more every day. I guess each person has to find their own comfort level of how much they're going to expose themselves to some perceived 'danger' and how much they're going to protect themselves.

But what about the children people post pictrures of? What if they dont want photos of themselves dressed in just diapers or just shoes posted of them on the internet for the WORLD to see? This isn't just for family enjoyment, this is a lack of thought involved in respecting your children. Just because thier young doent mean they can be humiliated. How about not posting photos of your children in any type of exposure especially one a parent wouldn't post of themselves for the WORLD to see. This has been known for 15+ years, how people still post photos of children online is retarded. this has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with respect and proctecting your children. This type of thought keeps your children from drinking underage, using drugs, early pregnancies, and many other things they do. What other people do is out of our control. Let freaks steal underwear pictures. Its always going to happen but this isn't about them, its about proctecting your childs rights and health.

Right, taking picture of our children in their diapers at 2 is "disrespectful" but then over sexualizing our 7 year olds is okay -- but then at 15 we want to sexually repress them and then we wonder why the teen pregnancy rate continues to climb? I am sorry, but pictures of our toddlers in their diapers is the LEAST of our problems when it comes to "respect" and "protection" of our children.

avpweiorum;vlak - You know, it's never too late to overcome your shortcomings; admitting you have a problem is the first step ;)

Robert, your 100% correct......it's simply humiliating for the child to be posted naked at all, even if the child can't talk yet.....it's like, respect your children people, and then guess what, their pictures will simply not end up in the wrong hands.....

Instead of writing what they probably do not get, Robert-2056296 - just state that #10 and #10.3 indicate something to be desired, as in atleast 'one short of a six pack', as far has the lack of concern to the respect of the toddlers.

Even though a pediphile will get his kicks somewhere no matter what, I don't want him getting them from MY child's picture!

Pray a detective never sees the photo in your family scrapbook, if the genitals are exposed you WILL be charged with child pornography and your child/children will be taken out of the home to be protected from the evil child pornographers who thought it was just a cute pic. When the prosocuter lays it out for the jury, knowingly took explicit sexual pictures of innocnt little children. Innocent parents go to prison. The rule of law now is "Be afraid of everything, Be very afraid" they will take and kill your children. Its rediculous.

Seriously? Seriously?? Seriously?????

Robert-2056296, can they 'get it'? I sure hope so.

Not that either case was on a social website, but still they were both developed on film that a technician somewhere saw.

Is that a way to impress others? #19, was the 'mother of the household' trying to show off the child by showing that picture to people she probably did not know? Or? Was she trying to show off the 'father of the household'?

Tell the home-care nurse to stay away from your computer. It's your computer and your home, you can do whatever you want!

PGH, I'd go a little bit further: document the location of the computer and the location of the nurse's responsibilities. make sure the nurs...intruder knows why you are going to fire them and then contact the home health agency and let them know why you are firing the nurse post-haste.

Taking naked pictures of your kids in order to blackmail them as teenagers? That's as bad as using them as pornography, Did your parents do that to you? How did you feel about it? You might want to think about that.

Blue Rose of Texas - calm down already - that is an OLD joke that I heard back when I was growing up and my friends heard the same thing growing up - you know.

Blue Rose - "That's as bad as using them as pornography..."

My Mom did the same thing to me when I was a teenager, so what?

THAT'S THE MOST ANAL COMMENT I'VE READ ALL YEAR! It just HAD to come out of Texas, the Bumpkin state!

I bet you're one of those over-protective 'helicopter' parents whose children never experience the real world till they're adults, then typically fail at everything they do...

Markus Demetruis...

Your comment amuses me....I am from Texas and my parents have all sort of what I call embarrassing pictures of when I was young. There are extremely "weird" people in all states not just Texas. I do not agree with Blue Rose's statement or yours but I do not go around assuming everyone where you are from is as pigheaded as you are.

Blue Rose,

Take a chill pill and pour yourself another drink. I wouldn't blackmail YOUR kids!

I have a couple of pics of my children when they were small where nudity was involved but it in the 70's and 80's. One was a bathtub pic because of the bubbles she had gotten into and my son, who had been playing and was covered from head to toe in mud- requiring he be rinsed off with the hose (it was hot out). Both were only 2 or 3 at the most and there was not an issue with getting them developed. Today we have digital cameras and printers at home or can even take our pics to Kinko's or something where we can do our own printing, leaving everyone else out of the process. In this day and age, I think I would refrain from taking a picture of the sort on a camera that must be developed. You never know what kind of prude might be working behind that counter and call authorities on you. There is no way anyone should be able to call the 2 pictures I took all those years ago to be anything other than what was intended- funny pics of my kids because of something they had done. (They do make good blackmail pics when kids are around 14 to 16. In a playful way of course. Chores get done quicker with the threat of showing them to a boyfriend or girlfriend!) I would never post those pics online or even share them. They are strictly for family photo albums.

As far as keeping children safe in this day and age, the chances of something happening to them may be slim. The problem is that it is SOMEBODIES child that does get abducted, killed or molested. The problem becomes- what if you and your child are that someone? Could you live with your guilt if you hadn't done everything in your power to make sure your child was prepared, just in case? If you didn't teach them how to stay safe? I was fortunate to grow up in the country and had the run of many acres at a young age. I had horses and cows, dogs and cats and the freedom to roam. I was able to enjoy nature and see the natural wonders of happening every day. I helped to take care of animals and plant gardens. Today we have children that don't know what a tomato looks like and couldn't tell you the milk they drink comes from a cow. They don't have wide open spaces to roam and yes, it is a more dangerous world out there. Whether it is from other kids or from sick adults, there are more people so therefore there is more crime against them. I don't want my grandchild to live in fear, but I want her to know she can't just trust everyone. She needs to know to trust her instincts and to know that if people try to do things that they shouldn't she has a right to say no and run or scream or whatever is appropriate. To not teach her would be irresponsible. Finding the balance is the difficult part. We don't live in the world of my youth- it is much different now. There are more ways to put them in danger, with the Internet, cell phones, sextingand social networking sites. You have to be a parent and stay on top of what they are doing, supervise their activities and keep up on their friends. Things our parents didn't have to think about as much because we lived when other kids parents would watch out for you too. Nowadays, if a parent tries to tell another about what their child was doing, you are liable to get attacked by that parent. (Verbally if not physically.) Not the same world.

loved the blackmail part. My brother has pics of his daughter in a ballerina outfit and she looks ticked off. She is an adult now and I tease her and threaten her with it.

Blue Rose take a double dose of the chill pills.