naked babies

In Australia, there is currently an advertising campaign for baby wipes. in this ad, basically all that is shown is babies and toddlers, who are completely naked.
I think this is totally wrong. For a start, in other ads, news, even funniest home videos, they blur out grown adults who are naked, or exposing parts of their body that shouldnt be seen, and there they are on this ad, showing babies who are totally naked, no blurring or censoring involved. Adults can choose whether or not they want to expose their asses, whereas babies cant, their parents choose, and mainly its to make a quick buck.
I also think its wrong because, well, quite bluntly, any paedophile could be getting a cheap thrill out of it, and that thought alone is sickening.

I just wanted to know anyone elses thought on this, because i think its totally outragous and wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seeing as how your user name is "Playboy Bunny", I would have thought you'd realize that nudity isn't such a big deal. Only in America it seems to be. Are you a conservative, religious Playboy Bunny?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA
thats funny

her, religiouse

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway no bunny isnt conservative OR religious (tho her familly leans to the right, GRRR)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no im not conservative or religious, but i find it really wrong to have naked kids paraded around on television.
I just dont understand why they can show kids naked, and not show adults naked without it being blurred. Whats the difference?

 

i guess honey that GENRALLY people feel uncomftable with Naked adults because of the range of emotions they produce

For example, if we have an ad showing a naked 20 year old guy with all his bits showing, men (GENRALLY, oviously not gay men

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) may feel uncomftable about looking at him, or maybe jelouse if there GF. Partner, Wife is

Im not a girl so i dont know the genral emotions that goes through a girls head when she sees a womans bits but i would asume the jelousy is the same

In the case of baby's tho the emotions are different (GENRALLY) that are produced, they would be the "clucky" emotions on average, the "OH isnt he adorable" kind.
This is shown in sociaty genrally. How many mothers have pics of there babys in the bath?

Its like showing a naked breast is taboo, but not when showing a woman breast feeding. Then its natural and normal

I totally agree with the part about sick thrills tho. The thought of that makes me sick but is that what runs through the heads of most viewers when they see the ad or is it the gooy emotions?

 

well it makes me angry and sick, i dont know the exacty reasons, but i find it degreding and wrong...

Say that they didnt cover up guys and girls all the time, i spose it would be different, ie people would be used to seeing it, wouldnt think anything of it. But the reality is, that kind of thing isnt done, IS covered on television. Its not okay for adults, it shoudlnt be for babies.

 

I uncomfortable with TV in general, watching all of those beheadings, torturing and killings of women and children.

 

good grief. but people get offended if they are shown blurred out naked little babies. it implies there is something wrong with either the viewers or the broad-casters or both. i will get offended if someone shows me censored pictures of their naked babies as if i am a paedophile. and i will be angry if someone shows a 'censored' picture of 20 yr old naked babe, for a different reason.

 

so then if people are gonna get offended at blurred out babies, and un blurred babies, i dont see why they have 2 show it at all.... .they could think of some other way to advertise it.

they dont HAVE to show naked babies, censored or otherwise.

there is a reason i feel this way, relating to something that happened to me when i was young...talkin like 6 or 7 here... involving a 50 something man, and that probably has something to do with how i feel this way. Like a way of protection or something, i dont know, im not a psychological doctor - but the fact remains that I find it wrong, and i know others do as well - i asked.

Now Bells, to your point of people on beaches. If i go to the beach, and there are people sunbaking nude or children running naked, i can choose not to look, whereas, sitting on the lounge watching a television program interrupted by ads, where they show them and u cant exactly change the channel -( If my dads in the room anyway, hes got the remote usually)- and theres not a hell of a lot you can do not to look, except get up and walk out, which i usually do anyway.
The point being that in real life, kids running around naked, are usually in their home or maybe like a 1 in 100 chance on the beach - (i dont think parents are so neglegent these days that they would let them run naked on a public beach, except when theyre changing them or whatever) or changing their nappies or breastfeeding them etc, i find it ok, i dont have a problem with that, thats not being broadcast nationally on a television commercial. I have no problem helping my aunty bathe her 2 year old daughter, well, i guess its because im family. Just as i have no problem with my aunty breastfeeding her or watever else with me there. Close friends, babysitters, grandparents, doctors etc. i find okay as well, because, simply put, its ONE or TWO people seeing, not a WHOLE NATION.

 

I'm not nearly as disturbed by a naked baby butt in a commercial as I am with the idea of a grown man shitting himself so that the audience can have a laugh, but there was a trend (strangely Kia ads and an online auto-insurance ad come to mind) in which the point was that you could use the money you saved to buy some new underwear.

However, the general difference referred to in the topic post, I'm convinced, is an overly-complex sublimation of a basic human conflict. People like to make the point that they are not sexualizing children, and in modern Western culture, the sexualization of children is becoming more and more prominent in economic terms, and if there's anything that wins an argument, it's money.

And so we have it in our minds to occasionally remind ourselves that this is not about sexualizing children; we are, as a culture, necessarily self-conscious whenever something treads near the range of sexualizing a child.

Except for certain aspects; much like the atheistic proposition requires the assertion of God in the first place in order to have an identifying context, so also does the declaration or demonstration against the sexualizing of a child require in the first place a sexualizing assertion.

It is, in fact, a self-defeating expression of mephistophelean° self-loathing.
____________________

Notes:

° mephistophelean - While the general dictionary definition - "showing the cunning or ingenuity or wickedness typical of a devil" (WordNet) - certainly suffices, it is also worth noting that the name from which the word derives, Mephistopheles, carries the traditional interpretation, "he who loves not the light," and comes originally, according to Davidson, from Hebrew words meaning "destroyer" (mephiz) and "liar" (tophel).

Reference Notes:

• Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels Including the Fallen Angels. New York: Free Press, 1971. (see pg. 190)
• Dictionary.com: "mephistophelean" - see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mephistophelean

 

tiassa your posts are getting even harder to read

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

stop being so much smarter than me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but anyway
abuse isnt ALWAYS from someone you know or trust, it maybe the majority of abuse is but its not all like that
and i understand where bunny is coming from (admitadly that maybe because i know her so well)

as a point of reference arnt our views coloured by our experances?
for example i cant watch TAC ads because piture being back at an acidant i witnessed. If you were abused couldnt these sort of ads have the same effects on you?

 

Just say you could somehow ask the baby if it cared about being seen naked, do you think there is a baby in the history of the world that is ashamed of its nudity? Do you think the babies are lying there thinking "this is so humiliating"?
If babies could choose they would choose to be naked all the time. Including when they are on television.
Its not like its a fact that we should be ashamed of our nakedness and babies just don't know it yet, babies know they shouldn't be ashamed, later they will be brainwashed into believing they should be.

 

ok, well, no i dont have a problem with nakedness in general, just when its young children paraded for no real reason in front of a whole nation. And im not suggesting they alter the ad and wipe a grown mans ass either, its just un-neccessary.
I am not the only person who is offended by this, and i have had many conversations with people who feel the same way as i do.
I lived in Sydney, and i now live in Adelaide, and neither of those places did i see children running around the street naked. If they were playing in the sprinklers, or with water balloons or whatever, they had clothes on, t shirts, shorts, bathers whatever, and their parents were always near by so that they didnt run around naked.
I didnt say that i didnt have a problem with breastfeeding being shown on an ad, i said when its around family, friends etc thats its ok. There is no need for a woman breastfeeding to be shown on a commercial. Nor is there a need for a baby being changed on a commercial. There are things they can alternatively do to imply what is happening, it doesnt need to be shown explicitly.

Maybe we were just bought up differently, different beliefs in what is right or wrong, but i still think regardless that naked babies being paraded on tv for no reason except to make a quick buck is not accceptable.

 

I think that the saddest thing about all this is not the nakedness of a baby or adult as such but that you and many other people find it difficult to see the inherant beauty involved and only focus on the issue of uglines. Not of the babies but of the people who may watch these babies.

 

bell

one thing you said there

that children arnt portraid as sex objects
as wrong as it is thats not correct

have you SEEN some of the things people dress there kids in now?
i mean G-strings for toddlers

FOR CHRIST SAKE
and the skirt my GF's sister bought is WAY shorter and skimpier than anything my GF could buy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(as much as i wish the last wasnt true

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

like it or not (and im SOOOO on the not) children ARE portraided as sex sybols and objects now and that is the sickest thing.

 

Asguard, what you are talking about in your past post ie. kids wearing G strings etc etc is a little different to advertisments with naked babies don't you think.

I happen to agree with you that to see a toddler in a G string is absurd ( toddler being say under the age of 8 years)

I think that it's a parents repsonsibility to act conservatively in the interests of the child and G -strings are a definite no no.