PDA

View Full Version : Naked children in public: How old is too old?


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
21st Sep 2008, 22:31
My neighbours :rolleyes: have a child and he almost never wears any clothes. I don't mean when he's playing quietly in the back garden either, it's everywhere and often.

The family will be on the front of the house, with the kid running around naked, or in the alleyway behind the house, and it's not just when they're alone. I've seen them with the kid unclothed when they have guests over and are talking out front.

Now you could argue that it being Texas, it's at least a warm climate, so there's no chance he'll get frostbite, but then again, we get a LOT of sun, so UV exposure might easily be a problem. So there's more than just a social reason to make the child wear clothes.

So I need to know, am I being too fussy? Should I just mind my own business (which I do really) or is this behaivoir actually inappropriate?


FWIW, I think the kid is three and a half now.

tony draper
21st Sep 2008, 22:40
Well if they are girls I think they should start putting clothes on at about 25.
:rolleyes:

Parapunter
21st Sep 2008, 22:43
Really? I've spent an awful lot of time & effort getting 25 year old girls out of their clothes.

I. M. Esperto
21st Sep 2008, 22:46
Just how old is this child?

I've raised 6, and as soon as they were out of diapers, they had something on.

SpringHeeledJack
21st Sep 2008, 22:49
Well if they are girls I think they should start putting clothes on at about 25

Classic answer, Mr D, that made me snort a salutary roar of laughter :ok::D

As to the child, well 3.5 years old is still ok, so long as the kid isn't running around in the street, if a dog gave chase it could end up messy. I suppose the age when they go to school for the first time. Probably if society hadn't sexualized kids so much and the hysteria about paedophiles pouncing, then we would care less and not have an uncomfortable feeling.


Regards


SHJ

Radar66
21st Sep 2008, 22:52
one of the lovely thing is seeing children on a beach bucket and spade holiday being totally natural, either in their knickers or naked. it is one of the last bastions of true innocent childhood.

I guess that when they start to become aware of their bodies is the time to put clothes on them. 3-4 years old is still young and therefore able to do this when playing with the hosepipe spray or in the paddling pool etc.

However, to run around all day, eat at the table, etc naked i feel is perhaps inappropriate. It depends so much on the circumstances etc....

but you are right, in the Texas sun, it is perhaps best to have a cover up of some sort - either seriously waterproof heavy duty sunscreen or some form of clothing.

Loose rivets
21st Sep 2008, 23:04
That's a question close to home for me now.

We had a house full when the kids were growing up. I made the conscious decision that we'd not lock bathroom doors or show any reaction to nakedness.

It was perhaps based on the shock my mother or I would feel when a door was opened to the frantic grabbing of towel or some such, and the fear the a tiny part of one or the other of us had been left exposed. I never wanted my lot to experience that discomfort.

They all seem so totally relaxed about nakedness now, while maintaining normal social standards of decorum.

The littluns skinny-dip all the time, and since my wife and I routinely bathed the children when they sleep over, it all seemed so natural. Sadly in this modern world, it has to stop in case they are observed.

I say modern world, but in fact, based on total populations, a child was statically more likely to be interfered with, a hundred years ago. I don't have the source material on that, but it was a serious publication.

The sad thing is that some peole react sexually to children. Horifyingly, there is no lower limit to the age. Sex drive takes over all logical thinking, and an abnormal desire cannot be wished easily away. From priests to polititions, men and sometimes women, have destroyed their lives and their victims lives by a sudden electro-chemical chage. Their very control is lost to this modified mind-set.

Nothing will change this. No amount of shouldn't have dones, or mustn't does, the danger exists. An otherwise normal being will be suddenly ruled by what could be likened to a change in sexual circuitry.

Therefore, a parent or guardian has a clear responsibility not to allow children of any age to be paraded before strangers. We used to think up to four or so was okay, but it isn't. Modern psychology tells us that the danger is everywhere about us. A small percentage of your respected and well known local people, through to close family are all possible victims of this distorted drive. They can't help it and most of them win the battle against it, but the imagery needs to be kept from them.

EDIT: all the above has appeared while I was writing this, and indeed, I love to see the children unencumbered by nappies or too big costumes while playing on the beach. I guess it was partly the training my wife and I went through with a view to fostering, and partly the shock of someone we know going to jail for a serious offense, that has made me lean towards the conservative limits I now propose.

About the only time I've seen my wife in tears in public was at that training. Something one of the instructors told her was just more that she could bear to visualize.

Effluent Man
22nd Sep 2008, 09:19
And it isn't just nudity.I was in Argos buying a kettle and the two ladies next to me were ordering a Batgirl costume for a young girl who appeared to be 11/12. Now I am as happy as anyone to see Mrs E kitted out a la Ms.Pffifer but it does seem a tad provocative to have a pubescent girl so attired.

Like the previous speaker I have been absolutely shocked by the local people alone hauled before the beak for unspeakable activities.I have a certain amount of sympathy for their position as their drives must be extremely strong to make them risk the implosion of their lives that detection brings with it.I think that if the understanding was a little stronger and the condemnation a little less then this might be a small step towards alleviating the problem and would serve to protect the targets of their unwanted attentions.

You can only imagine the effect that this young girl dressed up in the costume bought for her so eagerly by her mother might have on a twisted libido.

sthaussiepilot
22nd Sep 2008, 09:45
Anything over 2 is a little odd for me...

anything over 19 no issue here :cool::E

frostbite
22nd Sep 2008, 13:24
What I find somewhat entertaining these days is the little girls with nothing to hide being carefully covered up by parents on the beach.

As soon as they develop, they go topless!

airship
22nd Sep 2008, 15:49
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! There are naked children everywhere. But why are you looking at them (especially if they're not your own)? If you were able to post the images in your mind onto some internet blog or website, the FBI would probably be breaking down your front door as I write...?! It doesn't matter that I've seen some quite expicit photos incorporating genitalia posted by parents whilst wandering about their sites on Picasa, Webshots, Smugmug, Flickr or whatever. Whilst most of them make an effort to 'reframe' the original photo, there are many who don't bother. Anyway, they still have the 'unposted' original, one presumes. Are they all paedophiles too?

So far as pudicats are concerned, I appreciate the kitten (the remaining runt out of 4 that was never adopted) and which I've been feeding and gradually introducing to the rest of the clan of strays. Apparently her robe wasn't the right colour or long enough. Her mummy is already pregnant again too. Some people are so irresponsible. If I win even 10% of the EuroMillions jackpot announced for this Friday, I'll take them all home (around 25 pudicats). It'll have to be a rental home to begin with obviously. My permanent home afterwards will be more or less a NBC bunker, easily able to withstand the equivalent of a F5 tornado or Cat 4/5 hurricane. Or at least sufficiently able to withstand and survive whatever happens in the Middle-East. At which stage I'll be able to sincerely wipe my hands of what goes on there. And leave them all to it...?! :{

airborne_artist
22nd Sep 2008, 16:05
Well if they are girls I think they should start putting clothes on at about 25.

or when they've had two kids, which ever is the sooner :E

Roger Sofarover
22nd Sep 2008, 16:44
Airship

There are naked children everywhere. But why are you looking at them (especially if they're not your own)? If you were able to post the images in your mind onto some internet blog or website, the FBI would probably be breaking down your front door as I write...?!

Thats a little unfair. You can hardly not observe a child in your vicinity whatever they are wearing. Due to social norms it becomes very obvious when they wear nothing.

It doesn't matter that I've seen some quite expicit photos incorporating genitalia posted by parents whilst wandering about their sites on Picasa, Webshots, Smugmug, Flickr or whatever.

So just why are you looking at them???

So far as pudicats are concerned, I appreciate the kitten (the remaining runt out of 4 that was never adopted) and which I've been feeding and gradually introducing to the rest of the clan of strays. Apparently her robe wasn't the right colour or long enough. Her mummy is already pregnant again too. Some people are so irresponsible. If I win even 10% of the EuroMillions jackpot announced for this Friday, I'll take them all home (around 25 pudicats). It'll have to be a rental home to begin with obviously. My permanent home afterwards will be more or less a NBC bunker, easily able to withstand the equivalent of a F5 tornado or Cat 4/5 hurricane. Or at least sufficiently able to withstand and survive whatever happens in the Middle-East. At which stage I'll be able to sincerely wipe my hands of what goes on there. And leave them all to it...?!

That has to win the top award for the most amount of thread drift i have ever seen:ok: What are you talking about? Can i have a pint of whatever you are on please.

Juud
22nd Sep 2008, 16:59
So I need to know, am I being too fussy?
FWIW, I think the kid is three and a half now.

Since you're asking, IMO WAY too fussy.
I have a hard time even understanding how somebody can object to a child that age running around naked.

Look the other way mate, it's a child for crying out loud!

(oh and school age sounds about right)

Loose, disagree with you as well.
While naked children supposedly arouse more, kiddie fondlers will commit their criminal acts regardless of the amount of clothing a child wears.
Unclothed or fully dressed it is always the responsibility of parents/grandparents/child minders to make sure the child is safe and supervised at all times.
A supervised child will come to no harm, dressed or not.
An unsupervised child can fall prey to these predators, whatever its state of dress.

Requiring small children to modify their behaviour to ward off these sickos is akin to telling women they shouldn't be out alone in short skirts for fear of rapists.

Lock up the paedophiles and the rapists, don't change the behaviour of the innocent.

Roger Sofarover
22nd Sep 2008, 17:09
Juud
nice post, a little perspective at last.

airship
22nd Sep 2008, 17:11
I endeavour to get home anywhere between 12 and 2pm. I check my email, and my boss' email (that's how how I know juist haw much he's screxing me and how uch I can screw him with eventually (secret Danish / Austrian bank accounts not-withstanding).

My first drink is usually a Robinson's orange barley water mix with lots of ice, downed at once. Before the ice has melted, I usually add a healthy measure of Williams & Lawsons. I consult my emails, then haphazradly organise the rest of the afternoon attemting a reasonable balance between responding to the emails that I require to earn a modest living compared to the posts on PPRuNe which cannot go unanswered.

If children feel unencumbered with running around naked or whatever, I wonder whether it's the adults that have the real problem? Or, if 99% of paedophiles exercise some self-control, perhaps the 'legally-available' images on Picasa, Webshots, Smugmug, Flickr or whatever, would suffice to contain their abnormal desires?! Whatever, it's worth a shot or 2 of JB or even cheaper Scotch wouldn't you agree...?!

Roger Sofarover
22nd Sep 2008, 17:15
Airship
you are becoming even more bizzare as the day moves on. So are you one of the 99%? Is that why you peruse those sites? Seems like you have had more than one or two JB's

Mac the Knife
22nd Sep 2008, 17:31
If its fear of UV exposure then I might agree with you (though it really is none of your or anyone else's business).

If, on the other hand, you are attempting to impose your prudery (and Americans are extraordinarily prudish, vide their multi-billion dollar pornography industry) on the neighbours, then I would have to disagree with you fairly strongly.

The appropriacy of your neighbours attitudes towards nudity is none of your business, nor is it the business of your town or your state or your country.

The implication that you are somehow trying to protect them from the attentions of pedophiles smells a bit like a red herring to me. I think it likely that your neighbours have decided, quite rightly, to ignore the current prurient hysteria about pedophiles and let their kids run free, naked if they feel like it.

Disregarding the fact that the vast majority of child sexual abuse comes from within the family, we are being brainwashed into seeing perverts behind every lampost and consequently are reduced to keeping them cowering indoors, safely behind a computer console instead of running around exploring their neighborhood barns and fields as we did.

Dear God, these days a father is afraid to bathe his infant daughter for fear of some busybody peeking in the bathroom window! And it's curious that all this runs hand-in-hand with the ongoing infantilisation of women who now feel themselves obliged to remove all visible evidence of sexual maturity (apart from their breasts, which needs must be inflated to Brodignagian proportions).

:*

airship
22nd Sep 2008, 17:46
What Mac the knife said...,!

What we need is more high-resolution footage of what the average 10-13 year old boy or girl goes through. As the Japanese whaling authorities admit, it's all for research porpoises. If whales (those with the biggest mammalian brains can't convince the Japs), then I'm not sure if anything I say here will persuade anyone to protect a few pudicats.

It's been a very long rainy afternoon here on the Cote d'Azur nevertheless.

Radar66
22nd Sep 2008, 17:48
as an addenenum to my earlier post on this thread, what I do have an utter loathing for is those glittery 'sexy' bikinis and little frilly knickers that has things like 'babe' written on them that one sees for sale...

FOR 2 YEAR OLDS FFS?!! :eek:

:ugh::ugh:

Foss
22nd Sep 2008, 19:23
Airship
That last post has me beat. How did whales get involved.

CityofFlight
22nd Sep 2008, 19:49
Foss...c'mon, you gotta remember!

RatherBeFlying
22nd Sep 2008, 19:55
Up to four year olds given the chance on a warm day near water will have their clothes off in a flash -- and there's a number of up to seven year olds that will happily follow suit.

I remember a kindergarten campout where no kid on the beach had a stitch on, except that lifejackets were required in the canoes and an adult, me, had to see that it was correctly put on.

If the little ones are comfortable in their own skin, it's up to those in charge to see that nothing untoward happens.

Mind you, the comments you will get from the neighbors in Texas may not be the same you would get from the neighbors in Holland;)

con-pilot
22nd Sep 2008, 20:41
I don't know, tough call.

Is it better to let a 6 year old run around naked,


Or show her off like this?



http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c246/con-pilot/150px-JonBenetRamsey.jpg

That was JonBenet Ramsey just before she was murdered.

Loose rivets
22nd Sep 2008, 20:42
There are some interesting and varied viewpoints here.

Firstly, the kids 5 and 9 here, still bathe in the nuddy when at home. Not always, but when they want to. The 5 year old has now joined her brother in wearing a costume on the beach. Seems about right.

What I'm doing is frantically checking for my enthusiastic ‘catch-them-in-mid-air' photos, so that I have not got a single one on a computer. I never gave the legal issue a moment's thought. Lovely pics, some of them 5 foot off the water spinning in the air. Such a shame to scrap them, but it's best.

When the inhabitants of a Scottish island had their children taken into care while an investigation was carried out, I was so enraged that I visualized going waaaaaaaaay on the wrong side of the law if anything like that happened at home. I would have started a war of self-righteous reprisal. I can still feel the rage. But the fact was that about the time that individual case was being processed, a huge amount of new knowledge had been gleaned about child abuse. It was all a bit under cover then, but the findings were scaring the bejeebers out of authorities everywhere.


And it isn't just nudity.I was in Argos buying a kettle and the two ladies next to me were ordering a Batgirl costume for a young girl who appeared to be 11/12. Now I am as happy as anyone to see Mrs E kitted out a la Ms.Pffifer but it does seem a tad provocative to have a pubescent girl so attired.

This is a very real issue. So much goes unspoken about what Havlock Ellis called ‘Stuff Fetishism'. Some humans are unaffected by any form of attire, but some are overwhelmed by it; in particular modern synthetic materials. It causes a hugely modified sexual state. It's close ties...erm, I'd better say links, to other foibles is well established, and presents very real danger to the vulnerable. It's a pity, because it's driven some glistening and cheerful garments underground.

They (these materials) weren't there while the brain was evolving, and I think that the reaction is part of the mechanism that keeps the unborn child from suffering the confinement of the womb. Prior to modern materials, that reward circuit faded, along with a lot of other circuitry, in the first few months after birth. As such, it might not really be a fetish at all, in the real sense.

Dressing children up for glamor contests leaves me cold. The dangers were always obvious, and since JonBenét Patricia Ramsey, should have been stopped. A shame again, because the innocent had fun. But the dangers simply outweighed the rewards.

This all sounds so gloomy, but with the second round of littleuns to care for I've probably gone into full protection mode again.

Roger Sofarover
22nd Sep 2008, 21:01
Loose
I agree with the sentiments of your post. On the subject of dressing youngsters up for glamour however

A shame again, because the innocent had fun

To be honest i am not sure they do. These glamour competitions appear to be purely for the self satisfaction of obsessed parents in a very competitive environment. Children are often up at 4am having beauty treatments and make up, and the smiles you see on stage are often forced, followed off stage by children in tears because they have been chastised by their parents for 'poor performance'

Pontius Navigator
22nd Sep 2008, 21:40
Ok, serious answer.

Master PN grandson is quite happy at 3 stripping off down the beach. He is equally happy dressing up too. None of your little swim trunks but the overall arms, legs, full body sunsuit and a peaked cap with neck covering.

He was put into a shorty wetsuit type when he was first in a pool in UK and is now quite happy swimming fully clothed in a Cypriot sun. Most of his contemporaries are also fully attired.

So, where it is very warm but no risk of sun burn then nuddy is fine. Where it is in full scorching sun then a full suit is fine too.

Age to change? Whenever he wants.

Miserlou
22nd Sep 2008, 22:53
The children will usually decide when they want to cover up, usually between 4 and 7 years.

And they will be in complete safety if they are being raised properly. That is to say at least one parent or very close relative in sight or hearing range.

Very wise to cover up in strong sunlight and easiest protection is with clothes.

BOFH
22nd Sep 2008, 23:48
Apropos the comments of Loose Rivets earlier:
The Perry Bible Fellowship (http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF215-Kitty_Photographer.jpg)

BOFH

Mac the Knife
23rd Sep 2008, 00:29
"What I'm doing is frantically checking for my enthusiastic ‘catch-them-in-mid-air' photos, so that I have not got a single one on a computer."

That is one of the saddest things I've ever read.

:sad:

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2008, 00:44
Even sadder is that, short of physically destroying the hard-drive, traces of the images remain that can be retrieved by 'experts'.
I prepared a collage of photographs for my daughter's wedding, including the 'usual' picture of her in the bath aged fifteen months. I was under pressure to remove this, but, as it didn't show anything sexual I refused to be browbeaten. My daughter didn't object when she saw the result.

Loose rivets
23rd Sep 2008, 01:47
That is one of the saddest things I've ever read.

Its more than sad, it's frightening. That cartoon above says it all about British justice right now.

I for one have no confidence in the law. Not one jot. But we have enough angry threads on that subject.

Some of the better photographs can be put on disk and lodged with the parents, but any computer that I might for instance carry through 'security' and be asked to turn on, must not have any on there. My journey could stop right there.

chornedsnorkack
23rd Sep 2008, 18:52
That was JonBenet Ramsey just before she was murdered.

Plenty of girls have been murdered or have vanished without attracting quite the same level of attention as JonBenet Ramsay or Madeleine McCann.

larssnowpharter
23rd Sep 2008, 21:09
Sad isn't it.

The paedophiles have robbed us all of our innocence to do things that we would have thought were quite harmless.

This year, back in UK our 3 yr old was playing on a slide in the local playground. I - proud dad - was trying to take photos.

Woman comes up to me and says:

You :mad: perve takin pics of kids

To which I could only reply:

Madam, one would be obliged if you would kindly remove your springoff/s from my photo

Nothing to do with nudity but just so feckin sad that the world has come to this.

frostbite
23rd Sep 2008, 22:47
I would venture it's more the politically correct/neurotic that have done the robbing.

It's likely to get even worse as the kids pick up on the neuroses at an early age and it has more time to fester inside their minds.

G-CPTN
23rd Sep 2008, 22:53
I guess it is the digital camera to blame.
In the days of film photography, unless the photographer processed their own film, the processing labs acted as censors (try getting 'glamour' shots printed by commercial labs) and any questionable images would have had the Police waiting for the photographer when they returned to collect the prints. Even getting the negative processed risked being 'caught'.
Nowadays, the photographer (or even the medium) never goes anywhere near any third party, so there is absolute freedom to capture whatsoever images they want, not to mention the ability to 'doctor' the subject using a computer . . .
Of course, once scanners became readily available then hard-copy prints could be used as source material, but there was still the processing lab censor.

I would just like to add that I have never taken any photographs that I wouldn't be prepared to have OK'd by a processing lab censor, nor have I altered any photographs other than to compensate for being too dark or having red eye (and those being in numbers that I could count on my fingers and toes).