Jezebel

FAQ. Include # before tag:
#tips,
#snapjudgment,
#groupthink,
etc.

New York, 9:17 PM
Thu Dec 10
72 posts in the last 24 hours

Tip your editors:

Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter

Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter

Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter

Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter

Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter

Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter

Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers

Lizzie Skurnick

Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter

Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter

posts about #nakedkids more →
Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
Naked Kids Polarize Clothed Adults

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

whynotshesaid
09/19/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
Also, this is the best argument for a digital camera I've ever seen in my life.
Reply

whynotshesaid was starred whynotshesaid was unstarred

whynotshesaid
09/19/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
Well, shit, my parents should have lost custody of us too. Not only did they have one of my sister and I naked in the tub, but there are some of my sister wearing nothing but Care Bears slippers and spaghetti sauce, and I think is one of me butt naked in a kiddie pool. Clearly my parents were operating a child pornography ring, and needed to be punished.
Reply

whynotshesaid was starred whynotshesaid was unstarred

lizziesaint
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
Good Lord, a wee bit harsh don't you think. My mom still has pictures of us in the tub on the fridge from when I was little. You know, the typical shampooed hair standing straight up. A month? What a terrible thing to do over a couple of family photos.
Reply

BlondeGoddess promoted this comment lizziesaint was starred lizziesaint was unstarred

BlondeGoddess
09/18/09

@lizziesaint: And how traumatic it must have been for the kids. Jeez.
Reply

BlondeGoddess was starred BlondeGoddess was unstarred

Feminist Whore
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
We live in a world where it's ok for a TV network to exploit little girls who are caked with make-up and taught to shake their asses on a stage for judges but it's criminal for parents to photograph their own children in the tub.

I'd like to try living in a different world for a while.
Reply

BlondeGoddess promoted this comment Feminist Whore was starred Feminist Whore was unstarred

BlondeGoddess
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Porn, apparantly, also.
Reply

BlondeGoddess was starred BlondeGoddess was unstarred

footnotegirl
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
When I was in college in the early 90's, one of my professors had her children taken away from her because she had sent pictures of them playing topless in the sprinkler (at, if I am remembering correctly, the ages of 2 and 4) to be developed. Luckily, the brouhaha boiled down fairly quickly and they were returned.
Frankly, I think this all has a lot to do with our society's sexualization of children and of nudity rather than any sort of increase in predators. We seem to have completely lost any ability to see children as anything but 'sexually attractive to predators' and nudity as anything but a prelude to sexual activity. Rather than protecting our children's innocence, I think this utterly removes it from them.
Reply

Hana Maru promoted this comment footnotegirl was starred footnotegirl was unstarred

LatoyaPeterson
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
That's a little tough. As former photo lab tech (like others on this thread) you get kind of amazed at the stuff people ask you to print. Sometimes we laughed, but sometimes we called the police.

Normally, naked kid pictures are ok. However, I do recall calling the cops on a guy who turned in photos of himself and a young boy on a mattress. We went through six photos and each got progressively worse until it was clear the child was being sexualized.

That said, there is also the occasion when you just warn the parents. I had a regular client who turned in three disposable cameras instead of her usual rolls of Ilford. Pics came out with some blurry shots of teens messing around. When she came in to pick them up, I asked who the cameras belonged to. She said her kids each took a disposable to summer camp (this was before cheap digitals) and she was just turning them in. Her story was consistent with the nature of the photos, but so I told her what was wrong. However, if it hadn't been me knowing the client and what was normal for her (very artistic and technical shots) we probably would have called the police.

I understand parental frustration on this one, but I would rather err on the side of protecting children.
Reply

LatoyaPeterson was starred LatoyaPeterson was unstarred

rightfootleft
09/18/09

@LatoyaPeterson: But you got to the bottom of the mystery in minutes, should it really take a MONTH? Seems really harsh and disproportionate in this instance.
Reply

LatoyaPeterson promoted this comment rightfootleft was starred rightfootleft was unstarred

LatoyaPeterson
09/18/09

@rightfootleft: Agree - law enforcement really ran with that one. But then again, I wasn't working for Wal-Mart.
Reply

LatoyaPeterson was starred LatoyaPeterson was unstarred

ArtfulSlinger
09/18/09

@rightfootleft: Yeah but we haven't seen the pics. I always think people eying on the side of caution is a wise move, especially when it comes to children. The amount of child porn produced and distributed in this country is nauseating and much like rape, its like 90% of child porn is created by people who know your kids.
There had to be something that bothered protection services if they lost their kids, especially for a month. Also, if it was just the kids in the pics and it didnt seem like a vacation collection, I think the right thing to do was to report it.
Reply

ArtfulSlinger was starred ArtfulSlinger was unstarred

cnphair
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos

Half of my friends on facebook would have their babies taken away.

And since when is Wal-Mart the standard bearer for what is appropriate?!?
Reply

Scout promoted this comment cnphair was starred cnphair was unstarred

Flackette Goes Retro
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
Wow, my parents (and all the other parents I know) are in serious trouble. Funny pictures of little kids and babies playing with bubbles are de rigeur , I thought.
Reply

Ms. Take
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
i would think anyone who was actually engaging in pedophilia or child pornography would be cautious enough that they wouldn't get photos developed at walmart.

a friend of mine worked in a photo lab in high school where they had to remove any pictures of nipples. but the employees would make doubles of the nipple pictures and then play a game of "memory" in the break room.
Reply

Flackette Goes Retro promoted this comment Ms. Take was starred Ms. Take was unstarred

LaurieStrodeTheBoatAshore
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
OK playing devil's advocate here. First let me say that I think this particular instance was wrong. But as a whole I support the policy of not printing naked pictures of children. There's an 8 year difference between my oldest and my middle child, and during that time was when the policy seemed to come about (between 1996-2004). I had no problems at all getting photos of my oldest in the tub, or barebutt on a fuzzy blankie, developed at any store. Fast forward to 2004 when my 2nd was born, and I, at first, was shocked to be told at Sam's Club (owned by Wal-Mart) that they refused to develop all the shots of my kids in the tub or my baby-booty pics. I was really annoyed to be honest. When I was told that the policy is due to the fact that they cannot risk what could potentially be done with those pictures post-production (think kiddie porn but not in an obvious sense, some people do get off just looking at an otherwise innocent beautiful picture), I have to say I am 100% in support of the policy not to produce them.Again, not supporting what happened to this family, but I support Wal-Mart's right of refusal. It's a sad commentary on society.
Reply

GeorgeFayne promoted this comment Edited by LaurieStrodeTheBoatAshore at 09/18/09 10:57 AM

Ginmar Rienne
09/18/09

@LaurieStrodeTheBoatAshore: Except most child molesters aren't the stranger or the internet pornographer. They're that fine, upstanding uncle of yours who works with poor kids.
Reply

GeorgeFayne promoted this comment Ginmar Rienne was starred Ginmar Rienne was unstarred

GeorgeFayne
09/18/09

@LaurieStrodeTheBoatAshore: I don't know, that's a stretch. Suppose someone gets off looking at photos of kids on a playground. Fucked up? Of course. But denying a service based on the fact that someone, somewhere could be jerking off to otherwise innocuous photographs is ridiculous.
Reply

GeorgeFayne was starred GeorgeFayne was unstarred

BitchyD
09/18/09

@LaurieStrodeTheBoatAshore: I thought the whole point of naked baby photos was so that you can embarrass your kids when their dates come over. I think that the photos should be taken in context. If it's roll after roll of nude kids then there's a problem but if it's a few innocent snapshots then it's no big deal. I think that this whole thing has to do more with the filth in the minds of the accusers than the harmless intentions of parents. Besides does anyone honestly think that a child porn ring is gonna bring their rolls of film to the local 1 hour photo?
Reply

greengrey promoted this comment Edited by BitchyD at 09/18/09 11:46 AM BitchyD was starred BitchyD was unstarred

LaurieStrodeTheBoatAshore
09/18/09

@Ginmar Rienne: haha hey leave my uncle out of this.
Reply

LaurieStrodeTheBoatAshore
09/18/09

@BitchyD: Not at all, I'm not even thinking it's the consumer aspect, I guess I looked at it as Wal-Mart covering their asses as far as the person working at Wal-Mart developing the film, making a copy of their own and keeping it for their own use.
Reply

rixatrix
09/18/09

@LaurieStrodeTheBoatAshore: I can understand what you're saying and why you feel that way. But Wal-Mart saying they don't print naked baby pics because of what COULD be done with them after is like refusing to sell glue, spray paint, or cold medication because people COULD use them for unsavory things. There's a lot of evil in the world, but there's more good. It's not up to our retailers to police us and keep us from harm, because they close the door on innocence as well.
Reply

brendahamLincoln promoted this comment rixatrix was starred rixatrix was unstarred

randomnessish
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
Wow, I never knew Wal-Mart had slowly gotten so much power to deny parent's custody of their kids for a month. But I'm sure they sold them back at low, low, prices!
Reply

randomnessish was starred randomnessish was unstarred

KLondike5
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
I worked in a photo lab for a big box store as a college student. I never nixed kid pictures, but you might be surprised at how much homemade porn a lab tech sees, esp in the old days before digital cameras and home printers.

The management left it to the tech's discretion, but we all agreed that kids in their underwear in a family setting were fine, home childbirth, while not the tech's favorite subject to examine closely, was fine....we often even allowed the nice soccer moms close-ups of their husband's boners or buttholes.

When it looked like posed photos of various young women, though, or action shots of other people, we gave them their negatives with a note about why we couldn't print them.
Reply

colormeroutine promoted this comment KLondike5 was starred KLondike5 was unstarred

telecomic the thoughtful red panda
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
You can't get pictures of your kids taking a bath developed at Walmart, but you can wear a Nazi sweatshirt?

[peopleofwalmart.com]

Another reason why I'm Team Target.
Reply

MizJenkins promoted this comment

MizJenkins
09/18/09

@telecomic the thoughtful red panda: Or get "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" put on a cake.

[www.nbcphiladelphia.com]
Reply

MizJenkins was starred MizJenkins was unstarred

amy_b
09/18/09

@telecomic the thoughtful red panda: Target (and every other big box store) is just as bad. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
Reply

Scout promoted this comment amy_b was starred amy_b was unstarred

Scout
09/18/09

@amy_b: while I am not of the ilk who think corporations are evil (they merely reflect society, afterall) If one is shopping at big box stores, there is no lesser evil. They all take away from small businesses and ultimately, the community.

Locally-owned businesses return about 80% of each dollar to their community.

Chains and franchises, on the other hand, contribute roughly 40%, and as little as 20% of sales back to the community. And many big boxes, such as Walmart or Target, are given tax-incentives by local governments—costing you far more than the discounted price you think you’re paying.

I could go on, but I won't.
Reply

Scout was starred Scout was unstarred

telecomic the thoughtful red panda
09/18/09

@amy_b: I do think otherwise, mainly because I was a small-business owner for ten years. There is a big difference between Walmart and Target, in terms of business practices, censorship, quality of goods, general cleanliness of the stores and employee treatment. Walmart is only just recently responding to years of complaints about not providing living wages and health insurance for its full-time store employees.

Target is hardly the only place I shop, but when given the choice between two of America's largest retailers, I go for Target.
Reply

boobookitteh
09/18/09

In reply to Walmart Sued Over Family Photos
I am currently in charge of that (obnoxious) wedding thing of the baby and kid photo collage for my nephew's wedding. The centerpiece is a full frontal of him peeing in a perfect little arc in the bath as an infant.

Compared to that, that photo in the story is freaking Anne Geddes.
Reply

Maritsa promoted this comment boobookitteh was starred boobookitteh was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion