Stop threats and murder of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh »« Free Amina, Free Tunisia: It is the same cry

April 2013: Personal dignity is a foundation of human civilisation

April 2013 is here.

The photo for this month’s Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar is mother with son Maja Wolna.

NPR_Apr13_uncensored

She says:

My participation in the Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar is an act of the defence of the own body. Irrespective of the sex, the religion, the culture or customs we have the right to keep the personal freedom.

By the way, here is her censored photo for Facebook since it doesn’t allow nudity…

NPR_Apr13_censored

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can download the calendar here and join the scream on Facebook or Tweet #NudePhotoRevolutionary Calendar. By the way, the calendar finishes this month.

To see extensive media coverage on the Nude Calendar, click here.

Join the Scream!

Comments

  1. deeneely says

    I just wanted to make my disappointment made here like I did on Facebook. This picture should not have been used. The use of pictures which show the genitals of children should not be allowed and should not be used. The provide fodder for the child molesters of the world. I would have had absolutely no problem if the child had been wearing clothes, but I don’t find this appropriate at all.
    Where is the dignity for the child who is getting his naked genitals spread across the Internet and would you have done the same if the picture was of a little girl?

    I would also like to point out that there are plenty of places where this image can get a person arrested for the possession of child pornography simply by its possession on a computer.

    I love the calender and I have loved the rest of the pictures, but the child should have been covered or left out.

    • Eristae says

      Attitudes like this make me immensely sad. The idea that a naked baby = sex is beyond sad. Bad enough that the naked bodies of adults have been made taboo by their association to sex, but now that has spread to children.

      I have pictures that were taken of me as a young child in various levels of dress, some of which are me with only a towel on my head. Do I feel shame or embarrassment? No. There was nothing wrong with my body, and I was not sexual based solely on my lack of clothing.

      It’s not right that we are making bodies into something that must be hidden even for the youngest of us. It’s not right that a child who doesn’t yet understand shame or embarrassment in their own bodies must be made to feel shame and embarrassment as soon as they possibly can, and in fact before they possibly can, before they can even lift their head.

      I want children to feel comfortable and dignified in their bodies, to be able to explore and learn about their bodies, to feel free with their bodies, for as long as possible. Soon enough there will come a time in their lives when their bodies become something they feel is not beautiful, not wonderful, not comfortable, and something they must hide away. We do not need to move that day up.

      It breaks my heart. If a child is happy while naked, we shouldn’t need to rush in and disrupt that, taint that, make that moment uncomfortable and sad by insisting that the child needs to cover themselves. We should instead be able to smile at the child’s joy and seek to preserve it as long as we can, allowing the child to choose clothing when they feel that their body needs to become private.

    • deeneely says

      I figured I would just put this as a reply to my own post.

      This has nothing to do with a child being happy being naked. It has to do with spreading that child’s naked body across the Internet. If you want your child to be happy being naked so be it. I have no problem with that. Putting that picture in a public forum for everyone to see is a problem.

      At any point did anyone consider whether this child will want his naked picture as a child on a calendar spread across the Internet? You decided it was OK because it served your purpose. You decided that this child’s body was yours to parade naked across the Internet. It has very little to do with this child being happy being naked. It has to do with you and your agenda.

      As for the question of me being a fool. What I am is an adult survivor of incest and child molestation. I was sexually abused on a regular basis for the first ten years of my life. I have no doubt that there are pictures of me, as a child, somewhere being used as a masturbatory aide for some child molester. Somebody is using images of me naked to serve their own purposes without my permission or my consent. You have provided someone with the same opportunity without the child’s permission or consent. I will do everything I can to prevent this from happening to another child. This is not your decision to make because the child is not property to be used for your purposes either.

      If you want to let your child run around naked and the child is happy doing it then good for you. However, its not your right to turn that child’s most valuable possession into a public spectacle to serve your purposes.

    • Eristae says

      @deeneely (because I don’t want to make the reply tree any thinner):

      I, too, am a survivor/victim of childhood sexual abuse by a family member (my father). I do not have any memories of a time before it started and it didn’t stop until around the time I was sixteen.

      One of the absolute worst effects of my abuse was the way it caused me to view my body. No longer was it viewed as something beautiful to be celebrated and enjoyed. Instead, it was a weakness to be hidden and made afraid by. From where I’m standing, you’re saying that viewing my body as a weakness to be hidden and be made afraid by is correct: one should not show this child’s body because the child’s body is a weakness to be hidden and that the child must be made afraid by. I reject this fiercely. There are countless cultures (including our own, until recently) wherein the nakedness of children was perfectly acceptable. I am not interested in turning this society into one where the nakedness of children is viewed as wrong, shameful, or offensive.

      To be honest, the idea of a pedophile having naked pictures of me and getting off on them bothers me significantly less than the idea that I should have received even more messages that my body was in some way unacceptable. Child pornography is wrong because the production of it involves the harm of children. Having a non-sexualized picture of an infant who is not being abused but is nevertheless naked doesn’t even come close to this definition. If this was a sexualized picture of a child or the child was being abused, I’d be behind you all the way. But I am beyond tired of our society running around making rules against non-abusive practices because someone might find perverse pleasure in the non-abusive practices. I’m sick of it. There’s nothing wrong with the naked body of an infant that we need to be hiding it. Hell, there’s nothing wrong with the naked body of an adult woman that we need to be putting censor bars over their breasts. It’s ridiculous and it has nothing to do with the wishes of the person involved and everything to do with stigmatizing the naked human form. After all, does anyone who demanded that censor bar care if the woman in this picture is okay with her breasts visible? No, because that isn’t the true issue. And why doesn’t Facebook have a similar policy towards the bodies of children? Because the bodies of children aren’t seen as obscene. I want us to be moving towards a society that views the naked body as less obscene, not more.

      And I’m going to admit to a searing anger when you say that a child’s body is the child’s most valuable possession. A child’s body is not a possession, not for anyone. I’m not entirely certain what you are trying to say here, but a body is not some kind of object that can be owned, bought, or sold. It is not a possession.

      • deeneely says

        I use the term possession as an indicator that a child’s body and mind is theirs. It belongs to them. No one else has the right to use that body for anything without the explicit consent of the person who lives inside that body. It is the only thing you come into life with and the only thing you are guaranteed to leave this live having. If you don’t treat your body as such and others don’t treat your body as such then there is no way to declare “You can’t do this to me” with any legal, ethical, moral or philosophical backing. There is no other word in the English language which carries this inherent right. It is the only thing I agree with Objectivist about. I am not a purpose to anyone else’s end unless I consent to it.
        My body is my possession, but it is not your possession.

        As far as Facebook you might want to check their rules.

        From their Terms of Service: 7. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
        From their Community Standards: Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo’s David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.

        You will notice that there isn’t a qualification for “its only a baby.”

      • Eristae says

        I’m sorry, but I don’t think a body is a possession, period. A possession may be bought, sold, forcibly taken through the legal process to settle things like debt, and much more. A body cannot and should not be subject to these things. It is not a possession. My body is not anyone’s possession, not even mine. If you want a concrete example of how this works, consider the fact that I cannot (legally) sell my body into slavery, a transaction in which I would transfer ownership of the possession that is my body to someone else. This is not possible because a body is not a possession.

        As far as Facebook you might want to check their rules.

        From their Terms of Service: 7. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
        From their Community Standards: Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo’s David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.

        You will notice that there isn’t a qualification for “its only a baby.”

        None of this disputes what I said. This photo is not pornographic or explicitly sexual. They impose limitations, but haven’t limited the child’s nudity. They are okay with some kinds of nudity. So I’m not sure what rule you think is being broken that I need to check what you quoted.

    • Eristae says

      Oh, and PS:

      You don’t seem to be properly understanding “child pornography.” If this was child pornography, no one would be allowed to possess it (legally) whether or not it was on the internet. Parents couldn’t have pictures of their children like this even if they didn’t show the pictures to anyone. Hell, the child could even get in trouble if they had/disseminated their own pictures when the child was an adult. To make this searingly clear: If these pictures were child pornography and I was that child, my mother would not be allowed to have these pictures and if I, as an adult, possessed and/or disseminated them, I could get in trouble for producing child pornography even though the pictures are of myself

      I don’t think that’s somewhere you want to go.

  2. says

    Oh FFS it’s a BABY! If we are going to be held hostage by the tiny tiny minority who get their jollies from looking at a little baby’s junk then we might as well give up on the idea of free expression at all.

    • says

      And I say that as a parent who has had to wonder “Are these adorable pictures of my kids playing with a hose in the backyard going to get me fucking arrested because some moralistic harpy decided to protect them from me.”

  3. Contessa de Metoncula says

    There is nothing wrong with a naked child. We are all born naked that I know of..I am appalled in the year 2013 to still have these warped mentalities about nakedness!
    Eristae, your statement that a naked child is not a happy child is dead wrong! Children have no idea about nakedness and the so-called shame attached to it. There is no shame with babies. If an adult has a problem with it, I would strongly suggest to go and see a psychiatrist. If a the sight of a naked child gives ideas to an adult, it is the adult who has the problem. I have lived around the world with indigenous populations and there has never ever been a problem with a naked child , nor an adult. Ever since the event of organized religion has it become a problem, because they were invented by men who are terrified of the sexual power of women. Most Human animals are inherently STUPID! We are light years away from being civilized and by the time we might remotely become civilized, we will no longer exist as a species, having obliterated everything on our path through our folly, greed and most and for all our painful IGNORANCE.

  4. Contessa de Metoncula says

    Eristae, I wish to apologize to you because I happen to agree with you. I was rebutting to the statement made by Deeneely.
    You make perfect sense! Deeneely needs a little education about her unhealthy views and imposing them on others.
    Once again, my sincere apologies.
    Namaste

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply