naked babies

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Playboy Bunny, Jun 29, 2004.

  1. Playboy Bunny Registered Member

    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.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    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
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    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)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Playboy Bunny Registered Member

    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?
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    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?
  9. Playboy Bunny Registered Member

    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.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Where does one even begin.

    Bunny, there are many commercials where adults also show their behinds. For example there's this food add where the guy is placing the food on the table and he's not wearing any pants.

    There is nothing wrong or bad with the human body. Children love to run around naked. Tell me something Bunny, when you go to the beach and see children running around naked all the time, do you tell their parents off? Do you tell them that it's wrong their child or babies are naked? Do you tell women who sunbath topless on all the beaches in this country to cover up because it's bad bad bad? God help any person who changes their baby's nappy in your presence or dares to breastfeed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If a paedophile wanted a cheap thrill, they only have to go to their local beach, park, shopping centre, schools, churches, etc. Are there some in society who have sickening feelings when they see a child's behind on the TV in a nappy ad? Yeah there are, but the fact of the matter remains is that these perverts would be getting the same thrill if the child was dressed.

    It is how they are shown and also the context. The only bits shown of the child and adults that is not blurred out is the behind. The front is never shown. The images are not provocative nor are they deemed to be sexy. They are merely showing children in their natural environment, running around naked as babies and toddlers are known to do all the time.

    Would you really prefer that we become like the US where even the behind of a pooing pidgeon is blurred? (I saw this US funny video here on TV while flipping stations and they'd blurred out the butt of the pidgeon as it relieved itself on a person... blurring the butt of a pidgeon??.. censorship gone mad? Is it that bad there now?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    I uncomfortable with TV in general, watching all of those beheadings, torturing and killings of women and children.
  12. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    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.
  13. Playboy Bunny Registered Member

    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.
  14. Bells Staff Member


    It's an ad for baby wipes. It is made specifically to wipe the babies behind when changing nappies. Same with the nappy ads. How else are they going to advertise them? I would rather see an ad with a baby having a nappy put on or their behind wiped than to see the same done to an adult as an ad for the product.

    You really do have a problem with nakedness.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the 50 something pervert did not do what he did because of a nappy ad or a baby wipe ad. You may find the ad's wrong, but the majority do not. You would have to be the first person I've ever heard of who finds them 'wrong' or offensive. It is one thing to feel protective, but another thing to feel such offense at the image of a baby's bottom in an ad.

    There are perverts out there and they may be turned on by the ads. But these perverts may also be turned on by any child in any ad, be they clothed or naked. Would that mean that to try and prevent some old perverted bastard or bitch from looking we should ban all children from appearing in ads? How about in print media? Or on baby food lables or nappy and baby wipes packaging? There are half naked images of babies on there as well. What about art? Paintings in art galleries that have naked people in them, as well as cupids who look like children? Should they be removed from public sight? Destroyed because the images of nakedness is so wrong?

    You can always avert your eyes from the television set. Look at a wall or down at your hands. Your eyes are not glued to the TV so that you can't close them or look away from the set.

    You obviously don't go to the beach much. It's not a matter of negligence Bunny. How is a parent negligent if they let their kids run naked on a beach? A paedophile is just as likely to look at the bikini clad child or fully clothed child as he/she is to look at a naked child. Should we therefore not take our children out of the house in case someone looks? Babies run around naked all the time. Hell drive down my street on a warm day and you see them everywhere. Small naked children playing in the sprinklers or with water balloons or with the garden hose spraying all around them all the time. It's not unnatural nor is it abnormal or something bad. They're kids. It's what they do. Children hate the restriction of clothing. It would be wrong to not let them be themselves.

    So you don't have a problem with nappy ads where the parent is shown changing the baby's nappy? How about images of breastfeeding shown on TV or in the print media? Should they be banned as well?

    Eh? A whole nation is not out to get the child. If a child is to be abused, it will usually be by someone they know and trust... not the whole nation.

    Tell me something Bunny, do you find the Anne Geddes calenders, greeting cards and books offensive as well? They often portray children naked, as well as dressed in funny outfits.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    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.


    ° 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)
    • "mephistophelean" - see
  16. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    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?
  17. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    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.
  18. Playboy Bunny Registered Member

    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.
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Why not? When the world is trying to encourage women to breastfeed and to tell them that it is something that is natural? By not showing women breastfeeding and making it something that is taboo and something that should only be done behind closed doors, we are telling women that breastfeeding is bad and should not be done where people can see. Christ, what can be bad about a woman feeding her child on TV or anywhere else?

    Bunny, you have an attitude that would have suited you to the olden days, where pregnant women went into hiding and out of the public gaze and children were seen and not heard and kept out of the public view and not play as children play in front of anyone.

    Eh? What do you suggest Bunny? Changing a doll instead?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It's an ad for nappies and they change a baby in the ad. If it's such a problem for your delicate sensibilities, don't look at the TV when it comes on.

    Maybe we were. In fact, I'm sure that we were. But you do realise that many of the parents of those children use that money to pay for the education of their children right?

    I don't find nakedness to be offensive or bad. Children love to run around naked. How can that be offensive? They feel no shame or sense of 'badness' when they're running around naked, so why should others feel that they should cover themselves? Why imprint on the minds of children that any form of nakedness is bad? I think doing that to a child causes more harm than letting them play naked. Instead of letting these children be free, we are trying to enforce rules where children become ashamed of their bodies.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    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.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    That's the thing, the people who look at babies as sexual objects would look at them regardless of whether they were dressed or naked. So unless the world changes to the extent that we stop showing children in any form of advertising, be they dressed or naked, the issue of showing a child's bottom in an ad is ridiculous. It's a bottom for Christ sake. The child is not portrayed as a sexual object in any of these ads. To even see it as such is disturbing to say the least. And to carry on about it as though it was 'bad' is even more disturbing. Children love to run around naked. So what! The ad's aren't selling sex, they're selling baby wipes and nappies. If anyone sees something sexual in that, then help is available to those people. Either that or jail.

    What I find amusing is that the person complaining about it has a moniker that is normally associated with a Playboy magazine.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member


    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

    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.
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    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.

Share This Page