Yesterday, 09:37 PM #1
momtomy4 vbmenu_register(“postmenu_6814975”, true);
Skirty Collab with Positively Posh
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pa
Posts: 8,117
Ratings: 92
Feedback: 100%
My Mood:

Would this bother you??

So, I was browsing etsy for little girls clothes and found this store that sells tutus and the little girl is modeling them is about 4-5 and is topless with arms crossed. It looks really provocative to me and disturbed me. I mean there are so many pedophiles out there…


Tammy Mom to 3 on Earth and My Sweet Breezy in Heaven
Yesterday, 10:48 PM #6
Naturally Pampered vbmenu_register(“postmenu_6815460”, true);
Formerly: Naturally Chic Designs
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 1,856
Ratings: 146
Feedback: 100%
My Mood:

Re: Would this bother you??

Originally Posted by momtomy4 View Post
So, I was browsing etsy for little girls clothes and found this store that sells tutus and the little girl is modeling them is about 4-5 and is topless with arms crossed. It looks really provocative to me and disturbed me. I mean there are so many pedophiles out there…

I reported one of the pics and said that I would report the seller to DCF if they were not removed. I will check back to see if they were.


DCF? REALLY? Come on. They are pictures of a child. They are NOT porn. Save our tax dollars and our DCF workers for REAL cases.

Get over YOUR issues and stop putting them on our daughters. I’m just disgusted at the threats and rudeness.

  1. DSDM2 says:

    FYI: I assume this is the site in question:

    I think her work is adorable.

  2. Lokehualiilii says:

    Oh for God’s sake. If that’s provocative, then so is my daughter running around in her underwear at home. @_@

  3. DSDM2 says:

    Yeah, a few stores are now on my do NOT bst list.

  4. coffee drinker says:

    I know its innocent and all, but the girl seems a bit old to be topless. A baby, yes, adorable, for a 4 or 5 year old? I dont know.

  5. me me me says:

    I think it’s just part of our over sexualization of the breast in society.Even a little girl whom has none, is seen as sexy when topless. It’s stupid. Just because the 4-5 yr old is a pretty child and topless, that does not=sexy.

    I see why the seller did the pics as she did, the tutus stand out better that way. If you put a shirt on, the shirt distracts from the tutu.

    I think we shoudl call DFC on the hag that posted that. I bet you anything there is a some mad repression going on with her kids that isn’t one little bit healthy.

  6. not me at all says:

    What kind of a perv do you have to be to see those as being sexual?

  7. magpiedpiper says:

    #2 the difference is that your daughter is at home, not on the internet. I don’t agree with her reporting to DCF, but I do think in this day and age parents need to be especially careful with their little girls, and with the pictures they put on the internet. Personally I wouldn’t put a picture like that of my daughter on there, but it’s also not like she’s naked or in some slutty outfit.

  8. messy says:

    #3 Yup! Mine too. It is one thing to come and say that you nicely emailed the WAHM to give her a different perspective on the pics… Totally different to threaten etsy and the WAHM to call CPS over pics that are not pornographic. We all make decisions based on our own comfort level. Why should the ones complaining get to threaten their way into forcing the WAHM to do as *they please??? It is wrong on so many levels… I suppose now we need to go after all the catalogs and department store flyers and ads that have kids in bathing suits. There is way more skin showing in those pics that the ones on etsy… JMO!

  9. Aj says:

    Totally OT, but this makes me want to vomit post #347 about the “doobie” dipe.

  10. janell says:

    i dont’ think its sexual, but its definently not appropiate. I would not put a pic of my kid like that on the internet. i’m sure the seller probably didn’t want a shirt to take away from the tutu, but honestly, I think its not right. THere could have been a lot of different ways to do that picture and not have it appear that way. I wouldn’t report her or anything, but maybe send a comment that the picture could be viewed the wrong way. especialy by pedofiles that look for stuff like that.
    just sayin’

  11. InAfixx says:

    My opinion is that there are a few things that seem strange here. First of all, I think the POSE that the etsy seller chose for the older girls modeling is what makes it look borderline in appropriate. You often see pretty racy pics of adult women who are close to nude who have crossed their arms in a way that covers what can’t be shown. I don’t believe that this Etsy WAHM is trying to be overtly sexual – but the fact that their arms are crossed over their nipples is kindof that “I have something I have to hide for this picture” idea.
    Secondly, anyone who thinks these photos are not “provacative” enough to be sexually enticing is also wrong. Sexual preditors who target children do not typically look for children who are dressed inappropriately. There is an attraction that comes from the innocence of the child….so a little girl in jeans and a tee on the playground is JUST as likely to become an object of attention than a girl in a tutu without a shirt.

    I’m not hardcore Christian, but I don’t really care for babies/young children dressed in a more mature female way either. When Old Navy was marketing bikinis for babies and toddlers; it made me cringe.

    Overall, I think this Etsy seller and her items are well intentioned, and by the looks of it, quite innocent of any “crime” (as implicated by the OP). But I can see Tammy’s point of feeling that it may be inappropriate.
    If I were using my children as models for clothing online – I think I would excercise caution dressing them in any manner other than how I would feel comfortable dressing them for going out to run errands.

  12. o4eduk8ed says:

    Geez… I know things have changed since I was a kid, but when I was 5, I remember riding my bike through this monster puddle (like a pond, almost) on my friend’s street, and I was topless. Okay, yeah, not a picture pose, I know, but still.

    So, at what age is it not okay?

    Honestly, I have more problem with the diaper commercials that show a baby’s bare bottom and someone caressing it – apparently to show how dry the diaper keeps the baby’s bum.

  13. memyselfandi says:

    I am not seeing it, what pic specifically?

  14. Nic says:

    Did the etsy mama take the pics down?

  15. not me at all says:

    You know I was born in 1971 and the first swimsuits I ever wore were bikinis. They are not a new thing. At six I was still allowed to go topless with my boy cousins and no one thought twice about it.

  16. Shabbychic says:

    This is why I dont show pictures I consider works of art to ignorant, stupid, uneducated, sheltered, pathetic fucks who sit at home and hold themselves up on a pedestal ranting their Bible bullshit and threatening to call DCF about every child they see that doesnt conform to their purity because the Bible says so standards.

  17. Megan says:

    I believe the mama must have taken them down. I just browsed the entire site and saw nothing innappropriate, and no nudity on anyone over maybe 1 year.

  18. Megan says:

    16, I hold myself strictly to biblical standards, but have no problem with art, and the innocence of children. It’s this rapidly-deteriorating society that has to pervert everything, and it disgusts me.

  19. mmspirit7 says:

    Well I have talked to the mama in question. she is upset and she has removed them. so those that were bothered they are gone, but I think a kind email to her (like the one I sent and I didn’t have a problem) was all that was needed. but people did everything and anything not to talk with this mama and handle like grown ups and it’s sad!

  20. mmspirit7 says:

    She did take them down i have talked with her she didn’t see them the way that some are. and she is truly up set by this.

  21. mksmommy says:

    I’m sorry that you guys feel that nothing was inappropriate but I do. As innocent as it may have been everything coupled together (the pose, the makeup, and the fact she was topless)screams adult sexuality to me which I also felt was wrong. Its sad that some of you don’t see anything wrong with this given that we live in the age of pedophiles and perverts.

  22. mksmommy says:

    And I standby that cakemaven is a moron!

  23. haha says:

    I think she took the pic down

  24. jeruco says:

    mskmommy- you should go read the thread and some of the comments on there. There might be something for you to learn about why you feel its wrong.
    You have been taught by the American society that it is wrong. You are following like a lemming to what you have been taught. Do you realize that?
    you are a product of your own society and you continue teach that to your children when you say its wrong.
    Its only wrong because the breast has been made into something sexual.
    Take a stand!

  25. mmspirit7 says:

    since you like both sides here is the message from the mother. the wham.

    I don’t even know what to say. I just got done reading your letter and all the pages of feedback on diaperswappers. I’m in tears…absolutely beside myself. It was never EVER my intention to exploit my children or put them in harms way. The thought of these pictures being anything more than cute artistic or innocent has never crossed my mind. I’m saddened that my store and the pictures have caused this much uproar. I have just deleted any picure in my store of my models topless. Not sure if i will recover from this….may take time. Thank you for your honesty in contacting me

  26. Shabbychic says:

    No shit 24. Rock on.

  27. subpariq says:

    What’s sad is that people are so warped that they interpret every fucking thing as sexual. Some perverts get their rocks off by looking at little boys feet. Should I not let my son go barefoot or have his naked feet in photographs?
    You ask me the problem is with all you fucking lunatics that shake your bibles and scream perversion where none exists. That is fucking twisted and you people are the kind I would not want around my kids.

  28. mmspirit7 says:

    #23 she did she is upset and it all could have been advoided if the op of that thread had been grown up enough to email the wahm or any of the others that said the were calling cps and such and flaged them not one not one emailed her.

  29. not me at all says:

    # 16 Amen Amen Amen

    Bunch of sick people that look at a topless 4 year old as see SEX.


  30. not me at all says:

    that should be AND see sex

  31. mmspirit7 says:

    Originally Posted by PrincessDoodleBeans View Post
    I would like to appologize to all who found my pictures offensive. I have removed them and will not be using them for my store again.
    I have to say…I am overwhelmed to tears because of this. I love my children with all my being and never NEVER intended to put them in harms way or in any way exploit them. I am a homeschooling mom because of my hope to protect them from harm. The pictures were meant to be just cute innocent adorable pictures highlighting the tutus and headbands…not pictures to appeal to pediphiles.
    Never crossed my mind that they would be seen as anything but. The child whose picture caused the biggest uproar was just over 4 in the pictures and has a hard enough time putting anything on…..just part of her personality…as a mom and photographer, i was just trying to capture that attitude and innocence.
    I’m not trying to defend or plead my case, I’ve taken the photos down….ok.
    Just hoping to give everyone here a little insight into what the original intent was.
    And, just to be clear, i do not link my home address with my site…for other reasons.
    I’m so sad that this whole entire post even had to take place. I thank the kind mother who contacted me in the first place. That’s all it would have taken. I’ve had the photos on since november of last year and this is the first i’ve heard about this. Didn’t mean to cause a riff….or start arguments, or bring unrest to this site either. It hurts me just as much that there was this ammount of strife over my pics. Please….can’t we all just be bonded by the wonderful things we have in common, instead of what we disagree about. Thats what makes us great mothers.
    In His care,

    K. Frank

  32. Nic says:

    I didn’t see the pics, and likely wouldn’t have had any issues with them – but what kind of mature rational adult threatens to call DCFS??? Send the WAHM an e-mail, and be done with it. The poor WAHM had her name dragged through the damn mud because some closed minded whack job went on a rampage (well, a few actually). The maturity level on DS continues to astound me.

  33. mmspirit7 says:

    it’s funny bash the wahm but don’t dare bash the op LOL

  34. 2dogs says:

    I feel bad for her, as it’s obvious she did not intend anything by the pictures (which I haven’t seen) and is upset at the suggestion that her children would be looked at ‘that way’.

    And the whole sexualization thing is ridiculous. Photobucket REMOVED one of my photos of my daughter without a shirt on. She was 16 MONTHS OLD. Sick perverts that even look at a picture of a 16 month old and think it’s wrong enough that it needs to come off their site. It was in my private album, for crying out loud. And shit, the only way you even know it’s a girl is because she had a little skirt on. If she had been wearing shorts I’m sure it would still be there.

    *stepping down from my box*

  35. mmspirit7 says:

    number 34 don’t get me started. it’s sad it really is and i say the pics and didn’t think anything wrong but some say I am wrong for not seeing them that way. what ever. I have an 8 year that still hates clothes. oh and socks man talk about going around and around with the school on that.

  36. newhere says:

    I’ve never posted here, but follow along quite often. I do have something to say about this.

    I didn’t see the pictures, so it isn’t about that.

    I don’t think you guys had a right to jump on mksmommy for her opinion and belief. Just because you don’t think there is any problem does not mean she has to agree with you. Yes, the ladies on that thread were incredibly rude and totally out of line. Does that mean automatically that mksmommy agrees with everything they said? No.

    Please do not assume that just because someone agrees about one part of an idea does not mean they agree with everything else.

  37. mksmommy says:

    Maybe it is society but not for reasons you seem to think jeruco. If I knew there weren’t idiots out there who could jack my pictures for their own sick pleasure then I would be like hey wtf ever. I see nothing wrong with letting a 4 year old run topless in the confines of your own home HOWEVER this is not the case and I would hate for that little girls picture to end up on some perverts hard drive. And maybe I am reading too much into this but how hard do you think it would be for some really crazy hard core pedo to get ahold of that little girls address assuming the child in question is the sellers own daughter?

  38. mksmommy says:

    And I dont think its ok for someone that young to be wearing makeup. Its just screams JonBenet to me.

  39. janell says:

    mks mommy:
    I couldn’t agree with you more.

  40. 2dogs says:

    OK – I know this is a reference from like, 3 threads ago. But I just got a big ol’ wad of Zorb in the mail, and it TOTALLY looks like house insulation. Except it’s blue, instead of pink. I can see camallama all over this one. “Why do I need to wait on Zorb from Canada when I can buy a palette of it from Home Depot? ”

    This stuff looks a bit freaky, really.

    *back to regularly scheduled drama*

  41. subpariq says:

    #37 A picture of my child on his swingset could end up on a perv’s hard drive and he could whack off to that all day long. Pervs get off on all sorts of shit. I could take my son to the park tomorrow and a perv could take a liking to him and follow us home. The fact is that this is a more likely scenario than some creep finding a picture on the internet and tracking a child down. Within reason, I am not going to stop living my life and fixate on all the whatifs. I’m also not going to instill a sense of shame or over the top fear in my kids.

  42. Hawk says:

    What I don’t find appropriate is grown women behaving like harpies on the poor wahm.

    Who cares if her four year old *child* was topless with a tu tu, or she is wearing make up for the pictures,? Is that your kid? No? Then seriously. Back off. She is not endangering her kids, it is NOT neglect. They are photo for her business, and were *not* sexual in nature. Just because you think that someone might be able to construe it that way doesn’t make it right.

    Its like when photobucket tried to pull photos of GM’s diaper contest because some of them were only wearing diapers. They deleted some photos from members accounts, and it was a mess. In the end, they had their ass handed to them and allowed the pictures.. because they were wrong.

    Disturbing to me are the legal pedo sites. The ones that boast children as ‘models’, that dress up little kids as adults in all kinds of poses. All perfectly legal, and all perfectly sick.

    This is no where near the same or on the level.

  43. jeruco says:

    okay, what is real ETSY store being referred to? Looks like someone in that thread went told some other seller the thread was in reference to them. So, two sellers think its about them.

    so, which one is it. I am going to go buy something from them.

  44. StacEy says:

    people are crazy. I like the double standard….under a certain age and topless is cute. Over a certain age (4?!?!?) and suddenly it is sexual. I feel so sorry for the Etsy seller. Some people need to mind their own damn business. You raise your children and I’ll raise mine.

  45. ABCDEFG says:

    Ajane Amanda, you are an asshat. Just so you know.

  46. theinvisible says:

    This whole thing was enlightening. Who knew there were so many moms who found children sexually “provacative” . I guess I should be more careful at the playground. I bet some of these same moms think baby beauty pageants are just great. Yuck.

  47. jeruco says:

    is there some sort of ajane cakemaven GM drama going on here?

  48. ABCDEFG says:

    cakemaven, drewbears, gmbecky, gmamanda, momandmore and ajane. I’m sure there are others. They are all like slaves to Suzanne and her odd diaper land. I have NEVER seen women so blind. I’m embarrassed for them really. If Suzanne is really so sweet and innocent and clueless about all these business matters then she obviously needs a MAN to run her business.
    Seriously, I love the diaper and I have stopped buying them because the people behind them and the clones that they have bred are clownish morons that have no idea how to run a business.
    Fucking squueee on yourselves.

  49. Aj says:

    I think it’s about this thread:
    Oh, and I’m not Ajane if anyone was thinking that… 🙂

  50. jeruco says:

    oh, okay. I guess thats more than I needed, but informational.

    I stopped buying them because of the people who run GM too. But that was a while ago.

  51. InAfixx says:

    Surely there are not really people who are reading this topic and sarcastically behaving as though they didn’t realize the world is different now, in 2009, than it was between the 70’s and 80’s? That’s just a joke. It HAS to be.

    In the 70’s it was perfectly normal for my husband, age 7, to get on his bicycle and ride 3 miles out from home and play in other neighborhoods all day. Everyone did it. But there is NO WAY I would let me child do that today. Hell, the kidnappers grab them right off the sidewalk 50 feet from the school entrance nowadays… times have changed, preditors have become more aggressive, more courageous.
    Let’s not forget that the good old internet wasn’t even around in our childhoods ladies……getting your hands on pictures of children took a considerable amount more creativity.

    I don’t think that the OP was looking at the little girl saying the GIRL was provacative….but the pose, maybe the make-up, it is more on the mature side for a kiddy photograph.
    Also, I don’t think that a child running around topless in the backyard in the sprinkler is at all the same as a child being topless online without any restrictions to the audience at large. Make sense?

    I do NOT agree with the person who called Child Services (or whatever organization). That was an absolutely uneccessary and extremely IRRATIONAL decision.

    I encourage everyone to try and focus on the point – and not turn this into a religion bash. I don’t believe it is solely Christians who would feel uncomfortable with these photos.

  52. jeruco says:

    51- you have some valid points, but is it the OPs place to police or care about that on ETSY?
    Should she be emailing every seller or person who puts up photos like that?
    Just because there are sickos out there does that mean its our place to make sure there are not photos for them to look at?
    within reason of course.

  53. StacEy says:

    51: I actually do think the world, or at least human behavior hasn’t changed much at all in the last 30-40 years (or more). Let’s remember that most crimes committed against children are perpetrated by people in their home. Also, some guy getting gratification looking at a picture of my child has not caused my child any harm. So what does taking pictures of half-dressed children (who are obviously not being exploited) off the internet accomplish? Does it make the world a safer place? I think not. Its obvious that the child in these pictures was not being taken advantage of, the intent was innocent.

    I’ve had years to think about how I feel about pedophiles looking at pictures of my children. I came to the conclusion that I cannot control what every person is thinking when they see my children, and I have no intention to police the internet.

  54. InAfixx says:

    #52, you obviously only read my response part of the way through.

    “I do NOT agree with the person who called Child Services (or whatever organization). That was an absolutely uneccessary and extremely IRRATIONAL decision.”

    I never said, at any point, that I agreed with the decision to call authorities over the photos. Ever. I was sharing my perspective on my photos, and based on statistics and information I’ve learned in my past – there was a valid reason to show concern.
    I cannot, nor would I try to, “police” other people’s photos. What they post is their business. My level of comfort with pictures online (or anywhere public for that matter) of children that could open them up to being leered at by sexual deviants has zero to do with being a “psycho christian”….only a mother who loves her children.

    And I am certain, just as I was in my first reply this morning, that the WAHM loves and cares about her daughters also.

  55. Hawk says:

    But 51, we aren’t talking about abduction for goodness sakes (the vast majority of abductions are parent related then acquaintances, then strangers). Most of them also happen within a quarter mile of the home.

    We are talking about pictures. On the internet.

    So many mamas on DS post pictures of their kids without a second thought, even though they don’t view them as anything but normal. Doesn’t mean that a predator wouldn’t.

    Because there are sick people out there, should we all have to stop sharing photos all together?

    Goodness, 48.
    Can’t you hear the chanting?
    “one of us… one of us…”

  56. Erin says:

    I really dislike those who use their “morality” to police everything else around them. Really. Get a life outside the internet people!

  57. jeruco says:

    Inafixx- I did read your whole post and I saw that you didnt agree with calling the authorities. I read that.
    I said emailing the seller.

    You think its wrong for the photos to be posted. So you think its okay for policing of the photos to take place if you dont want them there. Policing can mean by ETSY themselves to take down the photos. Its does not have to mean someone calling the authorities.

  58. theinvisible says:

    I especially liked the one who was going to pray for the children of all the ignorant mom’s who didn’t agree the WAHM was a child pornographer. Bitch, please. The standards of behavior in “rural Kentucky” thankfully do not apply to the majority.

  59. mksmommy says:

    Exactly jeruco. I never said I supported calling CPS but rather that a courteously worded email would’ve done the trick. I dont think the OP went off on the lady because she isn’t the type to do that (then again this is just based on me and her chatting via DS and all so I could be completely whacked).

  60. theinvisible says:

    It wasn’t the OP who brought up CPS, it was the second post. I can’t remember her sn.

  61. jeruco says:

    mksmommy- I think you may have misunderstood my post. I dont think emailing the seller was right either because the seller did NOTHING wrong.
    I was refereing to what inafixx said.

    Although, emailing would have been a heck of a lot better of an idea then what the OP did.

  62. jeruco says:

    OT but this was funny: my5lilpiggies said: GM made a bad name for themselves all on their own

    and ajane replid: Not sure how this happened.

    and this was my5lilpiggies response:

    Registered Users

    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Posts: 4,119
    Ratings: 66
    Feedback: 100% Re: have you seen this? I mean seriously!


    Originally Posted by My5LilPiggies

    Let me count the ways:
    broken snaps
    cracked snaps
    shallow snaps
    ridiculously low snaps
    stocking SYOF1 dipes before coop members received them
    The doobie dipe
    The 50’s diner bleeding dipe
    The monster truck bleeding dipe
    Selective enforcement of SYOF 2 guidelines
    Cart issues
    Cart issues again
    Still cart issues giving intermittent ‘cookies’ errors
    Dumping customers order history with no advance notice
    Hidden stockings that were on purpose, no wait they weren’t, no wait again yes they were, no you’re getting a refund for buying a ‘hidden’ dipe, no you’re not, in the end this person did but the next person didn’t
    Everything is USPS’s fault
    Everything that’s not is your server’s fault
    Yes we moved the snaps, no we didn’t, yes we did, there is no pattern change, “I had the sewing circle move the snaps so the wings are even at the top of the diaper”, no we didn’t, there’s only one pattern, Suzanne didn’t understand the question.
    Random splotchy/poor quality OBV
    Making dipes with pitted OBV from the end of the roll
    Tags falling off
    Tags sewn on upside down
    Tags sewn too close to the edge which frayed the fabric causing it to shred in the wash
    auctioning dipes as THE last one then stocking them in the store within weeks

    That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
    ♥ Mom to ds-8, dd-5, ds-3.5, ds- 19m and bonus mom to sd-12

  63. me says:

    Am I the only one who thinks its awfully strange that “in this day and age” we have perverts, but apparently never did before? Weird. I know there are all of these freaky things that have come up, but I didn’t know perverts were one of them new inventions in the last few years. Wow.

  64. Aj says:

    #62, that thread has gotten hilarious!

  65. me says:

    And Goodmama is apparently a big mess. Yikes!

  66. Aj says:

    DId it get deleted?

  67. Aj says:

    It’s funny the gm thread got deleted probably for “wahm bashing” whereas the poor tutu lady got bad mouthed all day, and that thread’s still going strong.

  68. me me me says:

    Naturally Pampered is now the proud st idiot to make it onto my DS ignore list.

  69. me me me says:

    1st idiot not st idiot lol

  70. Hawk says:

    62, that is great.

    Did anyone else read that to the base line for ‘we didn’t start the fire’? 😉

    GM is a mess.. still a mess. They treat their customers like garbage, but it doesn’t make a difference. Mama’s keep coming back if they won’t get treated badly again. And they do.

  71. me says:

    AAAHH, I was reading that! Dang sometimes I wish I was still mod and I could go read trashed stuff.

  72. me me me says:

    Thread is now locked. 23 pages later. lol Sad, the poor WAHM was outed by page 2.

  73. theinvisible says:

    Is it locked or gone altogether? It seems to have completely disappeared.

  74. me me me says:

    cowmommy posted “this thread is out of hand. I am locking it and if you have stepped over the line you will be receiving a PM from a moderator” then bam, it went poof.

  75. mmspirit7 says:

    LOL good glad it’s gone now wonder if I will get a pm. I wouldn’t cry over it.

  76. dirtyj says:

    child abduction has always happened. I grew up in a small town and there were 2 that I can recall 20 years ago. We hear about it more because of the media. I dont know the statistics so the numbers may have increased some

  77. jeruco says:

    cowmommy loves her pedestal.

  78. InAfixx says:

    No, no, no…..if we’re going to compare our kids being topless in the backyard being “ok” to topless on the internet, I can compare child preditory crimes to child abduction crimes with the POINT of observing the manner and frequency in 1970 to today.

    I think many of the mothers here would agree to the theory of the big bang, evolution of mankind (we are descendants of ape-like creatures) am I right?
    Well, the point I was making is not that minds have changed in 40 years….but that the ACTS have changed.

    Take a course in Criminology.

    As the world changes, and we continually practice manners of better safety for ourselves and our families, criminals are also adapting and evolving (as all creatures do) to meet their “needs” in the world we all exist in. When we put up a wall, thy will begin to develop tactics to overcome it.

    My opinion that the photos were inappropriate is not policing the internet. It is my opinion. I would not post photos of that nature for the world to see. If the WAHM has carefully weighed the possibilities; and does not feel there is any concern; then it’s not place to argue her on that point.
    You talk about “policing” the internet…censorship on the internet. You argue that it is not our place (just plain old mamas) then who should have that role? Who’s responsibility should it be to monitor what is posted online?
    OUTSIDE OF THIS SITUATION, there are parents who will sell their children out. For money. For drugs. Just because they are general pieces of shit. Matter of fact, I do vividly remember a man who was selling photos of his 9 year old daughter nude online to support his meth habit. He fell into a trap and was charged with a felony as well as several misdemeanors. Should his right as a parent to post whatever pictures of his child he wanted to been protected? The question I am asking here is who decides what is appropriate, and what should be done about the things that are not?

    While I cannot control what some asshole child molestor/preditor thinks about my children; I can control how much exposure my child get’s online where 1,596,270,108 individuals from every area of the globe are browsing. (that is a legimate stat, in case anyone wondered).

    In other words, I, personally, don’t want to feed the bears.

  79. jeruco says:

    ummmm…. okay.

    Guess my master degree means nothing and i will sit quietly because you just schooled me.

    thanks for my edumacation.

  80. jeruco says:


  81. not just another mama says:

    Notice they’re both site supporters.. Coinkidink?

  82. me says:

    Maybe the wahm doesn’t get around the parenting boards and is naive and didn’t know about the aholes using all of the dipe pics a couple of years back on that gigantic site that the FBI was involved in and all?
    I can see it not occurring to anyone that it would be anything but cute. And imo, calling cps because of a topless 4yo is just disturbing…

  83. Hawk says:

    Those things are not related what so ever.

    Basically what you are implying, is because of the internet and the ability to see girls without their tops since the 90’s that there is a rise in child abduction from the 70’s. .. What?

    Back to the point.

    Which is, it’s fine if you don’t want that for your kids. Don’t photograph them, don’t show them around. But the WAHM was doing nothing wrong, and there were nothing wrong with those photos.

    There are horrible people out there that DO exploit their kids. That is horrible. However, in THIS case it was not. It was not trying to market sex. It was not sexual. It was an innocent photograph that people got out of hand and decided “Oh noes! Some perv could see it! Take it down!”

    World. Of. Difference.

  84. mksmommy says:

    So Im guessing its ok to put a 4 year old in makeup and pose her the way the OP claims she was posed? As I said before its not JUST about the child being topless contrary to what you think. What is the purpose of putting someone that young in makeup, with no shirt on AND posing them as such? Don’t try to say it was innocent or artistic because there is nothing innocent or artistic about that.

  85. Aj says:

    This is disgusting, why would you post this?!?!?!
    Plus your house is gross too, don’t leave your kids unattended and this won’t happen.

  86. InAfixx says:

    Child abduction and child rape/molestation are most definitely connected. Are you kidding me?

    Viewing children ON THE INTERNET doesnt connect to the abduction of that particular child, except on a quite rare possibility.

    A Master’s degree is impressive indeed. Thanks for touting that. You really put me in my place. Guess I’ll take my $5000 community college education and flush it, since my career past working around low-life criminals doesn’t count for beans.

    Thank you! For sharing your education.

    And yet again – my entire point is being missed. I don’t think the photos were intended to be sexual. Should I write that in all caps, repeat it over the course of several paragraphs?

    I didn’t say squat to this WAHM. And I didn’t tell anyone else to either.

  87. theinvisible says:

    Unless the WAHM was photographing her daughter topless to sell enough tutus to support her meth habit I still don’t see a damn thing wrong with it.

  88. ABCDEFG says:

    #85 OMG, ewww. I wonder if she lives in base housing, they don’t like that kind of filth.

  89. messy says:

    #78 I have a degree in criminology. It is what I went to college for initially, with a minor in law. I disagree with your theory relation practice. Yes, the acts have changed, however, you must add the intentions into the equation to get a complete over view of the situation at hand.
    The child had NO make up on. It was not JonBennet topless. It was a cute little girl with a headband and tutu and her arms crossed across her top. In my normally prudish opinion, they were tasteful. In your opinion they bordered on exploitation or beyond. The thing is, it does not matter which of us is actually right or whose opinion carries more weight. Because in reality neither opinion matters; it is the discretion of the parent as to what she uses to post on the internet in her store.
    Now, the thread was not a simple WWYD. It had threats of CPS and serious allegation of child solicitation going on. The person who started the thread was not as rabid as the later poster that said she actually threatened to call CPS and contacted etsy (with no mention of contacting the WAHM herself).
    Legally, the WAHM was not doing anything illegal or even distasteful in my opinion. Threats were the only way these crazed mothers were going to get her pictures removed, they knew this, and that is the route they immediately took. That speaks volumes about their real intentions. All it took was a simple, kind, and direct email to the WAHM and the pics were removed. The two more zealous persons that were throwing around their weight used threats to get where they wanted to be. That is unfortunate and I hope that karma is kinder to them than what I think it will be.

  90. Hawk says:

    86- … Let’s be clear. Child abduction and a *****single tutu photo from the internet**** are not related. They have nothing to do which each other. Nothing. What so ever. Not even Gumby can make that stretch. Try again.

    You said there was reason to ‘show valid concern’.

    That is what is in dispute.

  91. InAfixx says:

    It’s obvious I’m spinning my wheels like a dragster in the mud.

    Goodnight all!

  92. ABCDEFG says:

    Are these the same type of women who post non discrete pictures of themselves breastfeeding on the internet? The whole world doesn’t want to see your boobs. I don’t care what they are doing.

  93. messy says:

    Inafixx, when you tell people to “take a criminology class”, you are going to be told exactly what education the posters have. You open the can of worms, so don’t complain about the smell.

  94. Hawk says:

    Come on, 92. You know you wanna see my boobs.

  95. messy says:

    #85 THAT IS GROSS AS HELL! WTF? Next will she follow up with pics of her daughter’s first toilet shit? Seriously??? Why the hell would you take pics of that shit (literally) to start with and then what warped mind tells you to post them on a message board??? Excuse me while I go gag!!!

  96. Hawk says:

    96. Exactly.. I dont know. Someone not too long ago posted pictures of her daughters blow out in the crib… .. just yeah.

    Maybe they figure if they have to deal with it, then they can make random strangers deal with it too?

  97. Aj says:

    I know!! I threw up in my mouth a little… At least post a warning in the title so I know not to click.

  98. theinvisible says:

    I think I love mom2acrew. She always says exactly what I’m thinking but in a much more kind and tactful way than I would have.

  99. messy says:

    When I wanna not be tactful, I come here 😛

  100. Sharpie says:

    I love how so many people shit all over this WAHM, but how many times do you see a child in nothing but a diaper on DS and no one says squat!

    It’s one thing to give someone a heads up about something you may see as a potential problem but to say “take your pics down before I report you” makes me think that someone has had all their brain cells controlling reason washed out by a batch of mega douche.

  101. me says:

    Exactly, 101!

    Plus, theres a few tutu pics on Etsy where the kids look naked or dang close to it except the tutu and I don’t see any posts about those!

  102. messy says:

    #101 I wanted to comment but as soon as you start a post with “shit on”, I start gagging reliving opening the “what to do” thread :::puke::: Maybe I will recover at some point. But GAH!

  103. Rain Cloud says:

    oh Cripe!

  104. me me me says:

    103-IKWYM WTF

  105. theinvisible says:

    100- (JAW DROP SMILEY)!!!! I totally love you now!

  106. messy says:


  107. AshleyB says:

    Wow. I can’t stand the insane prudes on DS. I don’t see a 4 year old in a tutu as pornography. Period. There are MUCH more pornographic pics on DS (all the BFing shots, and the toddlers in nothing but a diap and teething necklace).

  108. Sharpie says:

    Sorry messy, just saw the doodie thread myself. Gag and double gag!!

  109. Sharpie says:

    Haha…my monster kind of looks like a giant floating turd too!

  110. Cheesewhiz says:

    Ok, I was wondering where all the comments went…onto the new posts…LOL!!!! The OP is RIDICULOUS. PLEASE. She must be one of those that wears ankle length skirts and turtlenecks year-round. ;)P

  111. Cheesewhiz says:

    I’m also very sure that all the pedophiles go surfing on ETSY.

  112. diudiaole says:

    #111 — haha Or the ones that never cut their hair, but they “make bangs” by ‘dippty do-ing’ the front a la Japanese rockabilly dancer lol I don’t know what that hairstyle is called…

    I didn’t see the tutu pics, but I’m sure they would not have bothered me. 😉

    OT: I can’t believe my ‘new’ baby is a month old already — I’ve found the AIO love though — see cute pics(first 9 photos):

  113. sarah says:

    I’m just surprised she pulled her head out of Kyna’s ass long enough to post about that tutu.

  114. jeruco says:

    inafixx- I am not touting my education. Not once have I mentioned it on here or on DS prior to this.
    I only mention it now because you told me to take a criminology class.

  115. messy says:

    113 You have the most gorgeous baby! He is just beautiful! I cannot believe he is a month old… It does not seem possible.

  116. diudiaole says:

    Thanks Messy! 😀

  117. Sharpie says:

    I agree! What a cutie 🙂

  118. Cheesewhiz says:

    #63 – I AGREE!!! Apparently perverts only came about after the turn of the century.

  119. Cheesewhiz says:

    Omg, diu, he is adorable!!!! But shame on you for sharing his picture. How do you know I’m not some greasy ‘ol perv? 😉

  120. eb says:

    I wouldn’t post pics of my babies w/o a shirt…but that is my choice, and I don’t cruise around the net looking for pics to bash and report. LOL

    I do get what fixx says about not feeding the bears. It isn’t only random people you don’t know who view you pics online. What about uncles, cousins, neighbors who already know where you live…

    But, I admit that I am overly sensitive because I was abused as a child/adolesent.

  121. insomiac says:

    I feel bad for the etsy wahm. she did not intend anything lude and if anyone saw the pics as such they should have just emailed her.
    The one that said she called child protective services needs bitchslapped. seriously.
    I worked for DHS and CPS for a time, and I wish for a world that photos of a 4 yr old in a tutu with arms folded across a bare chest was the worst we had to deal with.

    BTW, the GM doobie diaper drama has finally hit HC forums:

  122. Stacey says:

    108: I was with you when you said you couldn’t stand the insane prudes…but you totally lost me when you suggested that pics of babies in diapers and breastfeeding pictures are “much more pornographic”. I’m putting you in the “insane prude” bin. I may not want to see some momma’s saucer-sized nipple hanging out of her boobie-drunk baby’s mouth, but porn doesn’t jump to mind…unless you like that kind of thing 😉 Did I misread the intent of what you were saying?

  123. insomiac says:

    122. I read #108’s as sarcastic.

    I hope it read it right.

    Surely she was not saying bf’ing pics are porno seriously.(?)

  124. eb says:

    123 That’s how I took it also…

  125. Nippy says:

    They are five year olds… they don’t even have breasts yet. I wasn’t able to see the pics but I’m sure the mama had no intent on making the girls look provocative. Some ppl just loooooove to start drama.

    #9 HAHAHAHA- yea right GM didn’t know what was on that dipe. That joint goes right across the wing. Sick sick sick!

  126. mksmommy says:

    I dont think she was trying to start drama and seriously could we stop calling the OP names? She was offended and posted simply because she wasn’t sure if she was reading too much into the photos. Obviously 50% say yes and 50% say no she wasn’t. That is all so quit reading more into it then there is. Its not like the OP is posting to start shit like a lot of mamas on DS do.

  127. tweedle*deedee says:

    I feel very sorry for the WAHM. I know I have posted pics on the net of my own kiddos topless and never thought twice about it. A small child is a small child, it is insane to imply that a loving Mama sharing her babies is somehow feeding the sickos.

    And I came up in FL around the time Adam Walsh was kidnapped and killed. My Mom was terrified to let me out of her sight forever after all that. Sickos are not new, unfortunately. 😦

  128. tweedle*deedee says:

    DSDM2, if something is off please let me know. My FF crashed and I had to start new with everything. Hmmmm, maybe DS finally got me!

  129. Monkey says:


    I’m curious… did you actually see the picture?

  130. messy says:

    #130, that is what I am wondering… #84 is talking about stuff that was not there like make-up. The pics were not of a made up child or anything of that nature.

  131. mksmommy says:

    Maybe the OP was referring to a diff wahm because what she stated was the child was half nude, wearing makeup and and provocatively posed.
    No I did not see it so I am just assuming that the OP wasn’t pulling shit out of her ass although its possible that the child wasn’t wearing makeup but in fact the picture just made it look so.
    But I still wouldn’t post pics of my 4 year old topless. Just like I wouldn’t post pics of my girls in their underpanties. I thought it was common sense nowadays.

  132. DSDM2 says:

    I saw the correct photos before the WAHM took them down. They were NOT provocative. It was a little girl, sitting on the floor, with a head band and tutu, with her arms crossed over her chest. I thought they were cute. FTR, I have a photo of my niece at 6YO taken by the picture people in bunny ears and a tutu just like that.

  133. me me me says:

    ROFL at the GM drama on HC. Ok, so even IF they had no idea it was drug related. Honestly, I would have missed it too. BUT, it still was really obviously a “gangsta dipe” with the money signs, chains and 8 ball (which I know is associated with gangsta but didn’t know why kwim) winch is no less inappropriate. I mean really now.

  134. Monkey says:


    Did it ever occur to you that the OP was hyperbolizing? That maybe she was MASSIVELY exaggerating? You’d like to “believe” she wasn’t pulling shit out of her ass… but just because you want to believe it doesn’t make it true!

    I guess I feel like it’s pretty ridiculous to judge without having seen the picture. Your basically condemning this mom on hearsay. It seems to me like you WANT it to be provocative and bad.

    My main issue is this post of yours, “I’m sorry that you guys feel that nothing was inappropriate but I do. As innocent as it may have been everything coupled together (the pose, the makeup, and the fact she was topless)screams adult sexuality to me which I also felt was wrong. Its sad that some of you don’t see anything wrong with this given that we live in the age of pedophiles and perverts.”

    You make it sound like the WAHM/mom dressed the little girl up like Jezebel and took pornagraphic pictures and that is NOT the case.

  135. not me at all says:

    The strikes are flying over that thread now.

  136. mmspirit7 says:

    136 what thread?

  137. not me at all says:

    I am amused! LOL Wonder how many I will get?

    the etsy/picture thread!

  138. mmspirit7 says:

    ahh ok…well i didn’t get one and people said I was mean to the op.

  139. messy says:

    #135 I agree. When she said the pictures told her whatever, I figured she had seen them. Then my next thought was that she was lying about them because there was no make up, no provacative posing, etc.
    So, mksmommy, by talking about them and saying that they screamed adult sexuality to you, you lead us to think you had seen the pics. How else could a pic scream at you??? Anyhow, it really chewed up your credibility because you are describing something that those who saw them knew was not there…

  140. messy says:

    It wasn’t the OP on that thread that was throwing around CPS threats, was it? Who was the one going on abut calling CPS and threatening etsy? I think that the latter person gave the OP a little stigma there.

  141. theinvisible says:

    “And I came up in FL around the time Adam Walsh was kidnapped and killed. My Mom was terrified to let me out of her sight forever after all that. Sickos are not new, unfortunately.”

    Me too. That Sears is now a Target and I shop there all the time. But my parents terrified me and everyone knew the details of that story. What is new is mass media reporting every crime against a child that will titillate an audience. It does seem more prevalent but statisticly it is not. Is has remained static for the past 100 years. We just hear about it more because news doesn’t travel by horse these days.
    And FTR, I’d not think twice about posting a topless child on the internet. They are little asexual creatures like gnomes or muppets LOL.

  142. itsraininghere says:

    please, please, do not make this a debate about the media.

    i know it looks like the media only likes to talk about stories “that will titillate the audience”, but a lot of the times it is the family, friends, and community surrounding the missing person that cause the uproar. The media simply follows along.

    it is important that the word gets out to give the missing person a chance. No family should have to sit not knowing where their loved one is, and no person should be without a proper goodbye.

    I’m sorry, this is a sensitive subject for me. I just don’t like where this is headed. Thank you.

  143. ~*~MOMMA~*~ says:

    i agree that it was not the fact that a 4yo was topless that made them disturbing. It was the overly provocative pose, with her finger in her moth and legs hanging opee, head tilted like a playboy photo that made it disturbing for me. I didn’t see the thread on DS, but i was told about it before the pics got taken down and saw them. they were not all like that, but one was enough to make my stomach churn. It was not that a 4 yo was 1/2 naked, it was the POSING that was disturbing

  144. ~*~MOMMA~*~ says:


  145. theinvisible says:

    142 I wasn’t debating media, just stating a fact about public perception concerning child abduction. I can give you some of my sources if you’d like so you can verify the information. I am sorry if this upset you somehow but let’s agree to disagree about the motives of the media.

  146. theinvisible says:

    142 I wasn’t debating media, just stating a fact about public perception concerning child abduction. I can give you some of my sources if you’d like so you can verify the information. I am sorry if this upset you somehow but let’s agree to disagree about the motives of the media. They can certainly be a useful tool, I agree.

  147. not me at all says:

    #144 HOW can you look at a photo o a FOUR YEAR OLD and see that? That is disgusting. I saw the pics too and I saw a little girl clearly enjoying herself.

    There was NOTHING that made me think playboy model..

  148. ~*~MOMMA~*~ says:

    #148 – it looked just like a playboy pose. the ONLY places i have seen the poses with wide open legs, finger in your mouth and sitting in the way she was in the specific picture were in unseemly places.

  149. not me at all says:

    perhaps you need to stop looking at porn then…

  150. diudiaole says:

    LOL :popcorn:

  151. subpariq says:

    #149. You’re one twisted bitch comparing a baby to a playboy model. I’m sure it has never dawned on you that playboy poses are purposefully mimicing childlike poses because some creepos find that provocative…think shaved pubic areas, school girls, etc. It is not the child mimicing sexuality. It is disgustingly the other way around. Anyone that can project what you did on a baby should have her head examined.

  152. behooooooove says:


  153. itsraininghere says:

    146 and 147 – thanks for the offer, but i don’t need your sources, and I don’t need an apology for it upsetting me “somehow.” I have experience first hand, unfortunately.

    thank you for honoring my request.

  154. itsraininghere says:

    and I have to agree, a lot of times porn mimics children, not the other way around.

    i think it’s sad that a website that is FULL of women posting pictures of their babies in diapers with their legs spread far apart to show the fit of the diaper has a problem with a picture of a little girl in a tutu.

  155. StacEy says:

    154: I totally agree.

  156. theinvisible says:

    I wasn’t trying to be snarky but “thank you” for being a bitch.

  157. itsraininghere says:

    157 – you didn’t have to try. however, it’s all under the bridge as far as I’m concerned.

  158. theinvisible says:

    OK; well ,now I will try. If you are that scarred by your “personal experience” that you feel the need to jump all over someone for merely mentioning the media then maybe you should look at whether a call to your psychiatrist isn’t in order. I made a very general statement and you read all kinds of crazy into it. So piss off and don’t make your problem mine. I don’t know you and I don’t know what your “personal experience” is and don’t care to.

  159. itsraininghere says:

    I don’t know you either, and I don’t care to tell you anything about me.

    I made a request, that’s all. I don’t feel that I’ve said anything to illicit the kind of response that I’ve received from you.

  160. jeruco says:

    wow, this thread is funny. It has changed so much.

  161. jeruco says:

    someone read porn much?

  162. theinvisible says:

    Really? Then go back and read your response to my sincere apology for doing nothing wrong. I was merely trying to explain why I said it and that I was sorry it bothered you even though I did not and still don’t see how. My statement had nothing to do with any of the points in your response. I guess you have become accustomed to the DS way of life which is to go around talking shit to people who are too afraid to say anything back. That’s unfortunate because IRl there are plenty of people who have no problem calling out crazy. Get off me now, please. Go discuss your issues with someone who cares because this is really lame.

  163. not me at all says:

    Yeah maybe if I spent more time staring at porn I’d be able to see something sexual in little children.


  164. insomiac says:

    this thread got different.

    ermm. I was just coming back over to laugh amusingly that the HC goodmama doobie diaper thread was locked.
    we got in trouble for wahm bashing.

  165. insomiac says:

    Oh, and I agree that it is porn that mimics children, not the other way around.

  166. ~*~MOMMA~*~ says:

    I’m not saying that porn doesn’t sickly mimic children. Since it does, why put a photo like that out there at all? That is my point.

    And, for the record, I have never willingly looked at/watched porn. Anytime i have accidentally come across a photo or something during a google search, shopping for a magazine and what not, is when i have noticed poses like this.

    I have a very strong feeling against porn of any type, actually.

    You don;t need to jump on me for stating how I feel about the questionable (or unuquestionable) pictures. I am entitled to think they are inappropriate just liek someone else is entitled to feel they are not.

    Obviously I am not alone in feeling like those were concerning to me. I never though nor said that the WAHM had bad intentions, but there are lots of really disgusting people out there, and I try very hard to protect my kids the best way I can.

  167. ~*~MOMMA~*~ says:

    sorry for the typos

  168. newhere says:

    wow, people in this thread have just gotten downright MEAN. I don’t get it. Why attack each other?

    (FTR, I’ve always posted as this name, but someone else recently used it in this thread)

  169. mksmommy says:

    Ok so Im an asshat on the picture part.
    It doesn’t change the fact that you dont go posting topless pictures of a 4 year old. Times have changed from when we were little kids and like Lisa said I refuse to feed the bears. If you will notice I don’t take diaper pics anymore of my little one.

  170. messy says:

    #170 Fair enough…

  171. itsraininghere says:

    163: your response to my original request seemed nasty to me, but I honestly mean it when I say it’s water under the bridge. I didn’t call you any names, I didn’t tell you to go away or anything else. It was obviously a misunderstanding. I certainly didn’t feel as though I was attacking you, at the time I thought I was responding in the same manner to which you were responding to me. I’m glad we are both over it now. 🙂

  172. newhere says:

    Looks like Lee is having a contest to boost his ego.

  173. not me at all says:

    I saw that too ! LOL

  174. mksmommy says:

    Is he fucking serious? I have half a mind to post that I love DS because when I am feeling lazy about cleaning out my hard drive and all I can just visit DS and instantly HAVE to clean it out due to their stupid ass viruses (virii?)
    And yes I got hit. Pretty badly too. And its recent too so its not fixed. My fucking task manager won’t open, my comp freezes up, flickr has decided to create an error and shut down mozilla, AND fucking avg keeps randomly downloading updates. Thats not to mention the little HP icon that hides on my task bar and when I try to shut it down magically disappears.
    Thanks Lee!

  175. Cheesewhiz says:

    :puke: – I want to “enter” just to say something smart-ass…

  176. messy says:

    I love DS because:
    Lee totally understands that us womenz are stoopid and he is our loving disciplinarian ferret.
    I never have to think. Any topics that require thought are quickly locked and removed.
    I am protected from all the bad words!
    It is like a lotto! You never know who is going to get a strike and for what because it changes constantly!
    No sex talk keeps me from getting horny while hunting for diaper deals.
    Who doesn’t love a board where every scammer gets millions of chances and there is a no outting rule? We all have money to throw away!

  177. Monkey says:


    Is it okay to post pictures of babies only wearing diapers (you say you don’t, but what about other mamas?)? Aren’t there sickos who get off on that? Exactly what is the age limit?

    Is it ok to post pics of topless boys?

    I guess I’m just trying to figure out how one determines what is “okay” or not.

    My issue is not with people saying they feel the picture should not have been appropriate, but with the implications people have made about the mom who posted them. By saying (wrongly) that the child was made up like a scarlet woman people are battering her reputation, making her look like a pornagrapher and probably making her feel simply awful. She didn’t do anything wrong (maybe she was a naive, but it’s obvious there was no harm intended) yet she’s being crucified.

  178. Monkey says:

    And Messy, you’re my new homey! 🙂

  179. Monkey says:

    Sorry, that should have been “should not have been posted”.

  180. mksmommy says:

    #179 I actually thought about this earlier and Im not gender biased so I’d say no I don’t think its ok to post pictures of boys topless. But thats just me and its very obvious that everyone has different opinions.
    And FWIW the OP didn’t say anything negative about the WAHM as far as I know. If you want someone to crucify crucify the idiots who attacked her and pulled out the CPS card. Now that is bullshit.

  181. Monkey says:


    I’m not just talking about the OP, but about the whole thread.

    I do think the OP was wrong, because the more mature way to handle this situation would have been to politely email the mom and not start a thread about it. My guess (purely my guess, I don’t know the OP) is that she was looking to start drama. And it kills me that if people want to talk about a bad transaction and name the WAHM the thread gets pulled, but in this case the WAHM was outed and it was allowed to go on.

    I can at least appreciate that you don’t have a gender bias. What age then do you think it is no longer appropriate to post shirtless pics of children?

  182. me says:

    There is at least 1 person with a naked baby butt in their avatar. Is the poster who said call DFS calling on her as well?

  183. itsraininghere says:

    at the risk of sounding stupid, what is DCF? I’ve heard of CPS, is it the same?

  184. messy says:

    Same thing…
    DCF is the department of children and family and it is the same thing as CPS. They have different names in different areas.

  185. itsraininghere says:

    thank you

  186. diudiaole says:

    OT: I got my period already! It has only been a month and a bottle has not touched this baby’s lips. Same thing happened with my twins, but I had to exclusively pump so I attributed it to that.. WTF

  187. mksmommy says:

    Honestly I dont think its appropriate at all. Given the recent goings on in my area and the fog of naivete being lifted from me, I won’t even let my 2 year old run around topless outside anymore. But Im pretty paranoiad with my kids given the fact we do have a lot of pedophiles living in our area.

  188. theinvisible says:

    188 I’m jealous. My baby is EBF and 4 months old and the only sign I have of a period is eternal bitchiness and really bad skin.

  189. mksmommy says:

    I should clarify Im not like super loopy my kids cant leave the house paranoiad. I just don’t let the girls go out front in their bathing suits and nor are my 7 and 8 year old allowed to play out front without an adult.

  190. messy says:

    #189 Clothed or unclothed, I wouldn’t let my kids run around in a neighborhood with a lot of pedophiles p.e.r.i.o.d. Pedophiles can get off on watching a child in a full snow suit outside playing in the snow. They are not looking for *naked per se. They are looking for children.
    Don’t depend on clothing protecting your child from a pedophile and don’t think every child without a shirt on is the next victim in a crowd because it isn’t so.

  191. mksmommy says:

    I realize that too which is why Im greatful I have a huge backyard with a deck. The girls normally play on the deck. I think my neighbors think Im weird because the girls are never playing out front.

  192. mksmommy says:

    Grateful dammit. I so wish we could afford to just move. We’ve had three notes sent home regarding men approaching some of the older girls at the school since school started which is 3 too many.

  193. messy says:

    #194 Sucks doesn’t it? We live in a small town and I am floored at the number of pedophiles just around here! Most of them have been here all their lives, so they are not “new to the area”. They are people we grew up with and who have roots here… Then they molest our children! WTF??? And they still go places in public and hang out in kid spots as if there is no shame in what they are doing and have done. It makes me sick!
    FWIW, pedophiles have the highest recidivism rate of any other offender. They cannot be *cured. It won’t happen.

  194. Cheesewhiz says:

    Yeah, just looking at the pedophile maps online freaks me out. There are none on our street right now *supposedly*, but thank god I had no kids when we lived in our apartment, because our next door neighbor was a pedophile and I didn’t even know it at the time!!!!

  195. mksmommy says:

    I totally agree with that line of thinking Messy. Unfortunately the constitution affords them the same rights as the rest of us law abiding non child molesting folks. I know this isn’t a new thing but it just doesn’t make me feel safe. There are 2 in a 3 block radius around my house which makes me very uncomfortable.

  196. Kimbella says:

    Diu – Are you sure it’s a period and not lochia that hasn’t completely gone away? Have you been extra active lately?

    Women who are exclusively nursing have less than a 2% chance of their cycles returning before 6 months pp. There was a big study on this in the 1980s – google Bellagio Concensus. 🙂

    I guess there does have to be someone in that 2% though. 😦

  197. nodramahere says:

    The pedo’s have Weapons of Mass Distruction.

    If we start putting shirts on our little girls for photos, then ‘they win’.

  198. messy says:

    #197 Exactly. Once their debt to society is met, we are required to release them back into society even though their recidivism rate is so high. But why are they not ashamed? Why do they feel comfortable showing their faces in the presence of children and families? I do not think that we as a society are more ***accepting of their crimes; I just don’t understand why they are not feeling uncomfortable or are in fear of those around them. Those are the cases that I think redneck justice meets the bill just fine.

  199. messy says:

    :::hugs::: Diu! That sucks! Maybe it is like #198 is saying…? But since it came back early for you early with the twins, it is really a period 😦

  200. theinvisible says:

    Believe that if one pf those sick bastards approaches any of my daughters I will enlighten them to a very quick “cure” for pedophilia. Really though, I live downtown in a mid-sized city and there are quite a few of violent rapists and child molesters registered within a 5 mile area. I look at the site with my oldest just so she would recognize someone if they were standing too close or lurking near her. I believe they should just have both hands cut off on their first offense. Oh and both balls too.

  201. theinvisible says:

    too much what? I’m not being bitchy……is it the baby in the hat?

  202. messy says:

    #201 ITA! For some of the offenders, it is not purely sexual, so chopping off the hands would be an excellent deterent. Then to be sure, chop those balls off!
    I just honestly feel like pedophiles are not “shamed” enough for what they have done. They should be humiliated forever. Rape used to be a capital crime. There is nothing forgiving in any sense for those who perpetrate against our children!

  203. mmspirit7 says:

    yeah is too much skin showing you know some sicko with a baby thing might find that. eyeroll….I am not serious i personally think it’s a very sweet pic.

  204. messy says:

    #202 Too much of what? Too much skin or nakeness? That is one of the sweetest new baby pics I have ever seen. The hat is probably cute but I was busy looking at the precious little one! LOL! 😀

  205. mmspirit7 says:

    ok this is just so freaking cute the pics

  206. diudiaole says:

    I fully expected to be flow free for at least 6 months. When I first started bleeding I thought I’d over done it and I was a little worried…then it got heavier and I got all my usual period symptoms…it finally dawned on me this morning, Ol’ Aunt Flo reared her ugly head on me early again. *sigh*

    maybe TMI but the bleeding is nothing like my lochia — it is exactly like my period.

    Baby is attached to my chest nearly all day and night too…

    2% huh? sucks…

  207. mmspirit7 says:

    206 that’s me but it makes me wonder about mama’s that would read more into it no matter how much I try all i see is a sweet baby and think am I really done..

  208. me says:

    202- I’m with 206- that is a gorgeous picture! Awww!

  209. diudiaole says:

    Those pics are very cute and sweet – nothing sexual about them… I could never see it, never. There are weirds who get off on youtube videos of random bare feet trampling on teddy bears so nothing is immune really…

  210. messy says:

    Look mmspirit7, if you cause me to get baby fever, my husband will hunt you down! ROFL! He already told me to quit looking at Diu’s baby 😀
    Those are amazing pics!!!

  211. mmspirit7 says:

    lol sorry about that guess you don’t want to see my baby she’s only four months

  212. mmspirit7 says:

    lol messy I am sorry but I have to share it’s too cute

  213. theinvisible says:

    Ok, you scared me there for a minute. I have seen so much emotion about this that I really thought you were serious.

  214. mmspirit7 says:

    no I wasn’t I am sorry I was on the wahms side the whole time.

  215. theinvisible says:

    That’s good. The line would definitely have been crossed with any comment about an infant. It really already was crossed but I’m tired of arguing the point. I’m just glad you weren’t serious. My most recent baby is 4 months and I am already getting the fever again so no more cute baby pictures!

  216. diudiaole says:

    Ok I did google Bellagio Consensus:

    I just read it over quickly, but in the first paragraph it is saying women who are fully or mostly breastfeeding AND amenorrheic have less than a 2% chance of pregnancy before 6 months PP.

    If I’m understanding it right, only amenorrheic women were even included in the study…

  217. diudiaole says:

    Awww… makes me hope for a girl one day(like in the distant future..grandbaby?? lol)… all boys here… all that girly stuff is just so damn cute.

  218. messy says:

    #214 OMgosh!!! That is sooo cute!!! Just keep rubbing it in why don’t ya??? My last 5 kids have all been BOYS! I forget what small pink things look like 😥

  219. mmspirit7 says:

    messy i am sorry I have three and my last was my girl if she had been a boy yep I would have went on for another lol I wont rub it in I am sorry

  220. messy says:

    I am pretty happy with my boys 🙂 My girls are all older and won’t wear pink or ruffles LOL! So don’t be sorry… It would be nice to buy tiny pink things again esp now that I have been introduced to the world of cd’s and woolies 😛 ROFL!!!

  221. theinvisible says:

    I have all girls and will probably continue to have girls if family trends hold. Anyone want to trade? Just kidding. At this point I wouldn’t know what to do with a boy.

  222. mmspirit7 says:

    my family was all girls till i had my boy and then I ws like umm what do you do with a boy, then I had ds two and knew what I was doing and now I have my sweetie and well for a bit there I thought what would I do and I realize nothing different. it’s just pic now and not blue or camo….thank god!!

  223. kimbella says:

    Right – women who already had a return to fertiliy weren’t included because the study started with newly nursing moms. Once a woman’s fertility returned, it was added to the data, and she was no longer needed for the study.

    The study was trying to get data on how long it took exclusively breastfeeding women’s fertility to return.

    I know of a lady (via another forum) who participated in this study. It was supposedly very indepth. Like, she had to freeze her fmu everyday so that the hormone concentration in it could be analyzed. Ick!

  224. theinvisible says:

    I’m truly too tired to even look at the study but what was the average return to fertility? 6 months?

  225. mksmommy says:

    I have all girls so far. I keep telling dh we are gonna end up like octomom if we keep trying for the boy we both want LOL.
    To the pp who said you went on to the sex offenders site wiht your child, how old is/was she? My oldest is 8 so shes mature enough to handle it but I worry that she is going to start freaking out about someone kidnapping her. Shes a bit of a drama queen.

  226. kimbella says:

    Oh, shoot – I just realized I did quote my percentages wrong!!!!!

    The less than 2% is the chance of pregnancy if the mom is exclusively breastfeeding, the baby is under 6 months, and there is no bleeding.

    There is still something like a 90% of not having a period for 6 months if you are exclusively nursing. I can’t remember, and I just took my nightly dose of prometrium so I’m feeling a little tipsy right now – gotta love a med that has that for a side effect!

  227. theinvisible says:

    She’s 16 but we’ve been doing it since she was about 12. I didn’t get too involved in my explanation in the beginning. Just told her if you see any of these guys around tell and adult right away. And she’s the definition of drama queen LOL.

    We are planning on having as many as we can (we are at 3 so far) at this point so chances are we might have a boy but yeah, we joke about the same thing. Plus I’m not terribly young at this point so as many as we can may only be one or two more.

  228. mksmommy says:

    Thats exactly where we are now is 3. I feel so bad for dh because he is the only male in the house surrounded by 1 drama queen and 3 in training ROFL.

  229. jeruco says:

    diu- Same thing happened to me at 1 month. I thought my period returned, but I was wrong. It was just some late PP bleeding. After that it didnt return for a year.
    So, there is hope.

  230. Kris says:

    202- If something like that is considered pornographic, then Anne Geddes is going to be locked up for a LONG time! LOL

  231. mmspirit7 says:

    233 I don’t think it is I think it’s cute I was being snarky sorry.

  232. Thud says:

    I am no prude and I have been taken aback by other tutu photos on Etsy. My discomfort is not with perverts etc. but with the use of one’s 1/2 naked child to *sell* something. It isn’t needed. I have no problem with art, or someone wanting a cute nakey tutu pic of their own kid at home. But when you strip down your kid, put on makeup and encourage them to pose for you to make money that is a message that little girls don’t need in this culture that *does* sexualize children younger and younger, objectifies girls and uses sex for marketing.

    Whether porn mimics children or children mimic porn the same associations are made in the mind. I would no more want my child doing that than I would my grown daughter jiggling in a beer ad, kwim?

    What is adorable, tasteful, artistic etc. in one’s own home/ family is cheap schilling in a marketplace.

  233. AshleyB says:

    GAH…I know this is way back in the thread, but NO I dont think any of it is pornographic. My post was total sarcasm!!

  234. not me at all says:

    Thud-why does everyone keep saying put them in makeup, that FOUR YEAR OLD was not wearing makeup. The pictures were tasteful and adorable.

  235. DSDM2 says:

    I didn’t notice make up at all. And I didn’t see the “finger in the mouth” playboy pose, b/c it DIDN’T EXIST. It was a little girl, in a tutu and head band, sitting in front of a back drop showing some attitude while getting her photo taken.

  236. Thud says:

    237~ I was referring to other pics, which do 🙂

  237. me me me says:

    My 4 yr old has never worn makeup. But I don’t see how “if” a 4 yr old wore makeup in an ad to sell a tutu, how is that diff than a 4 yr old in a gap ad or a cheerios commercial. Those kids are wearing makeup. Not to look older but because the lighting etc is harsh and makes you look washed out so you need to compensate. If the pic was of a 4 yr old wearing full makeup in a mama’s avatar, I’d wince. But on a website selling a product, I would not. Because they are not there as cute kid pics, they are models selling a product. Which I do not have an issue with.

    Either way, I think the tutu pics are cute, shirt on or off. And to whomever posted that nekky Nb in just the hat. OMG that “almost” made me want a Nb to nurse again. “Almost”.

  238. Hawk says:

    Oh the prudes are going to salivate at the mouth today! Someone DS posted a rave for twirl with their toddler (maybe she’s around 3) in nothing but the skirt.

  239. Cheesewhiz says:

    Oh my…LOL…can’t wait for the reactions!!!

  240. Cheesewhiz says:

    btw…that skirt IS adorable…makes me want a girl! 🙂

  241. Thud says:

    Cute skirt.
    Naked is normal and healthy. I guess I just feel that my daughter has the right not to have her nakedness plastered out there just so strangers can say ‘ain’t she cute’. I just don’t see *why*. Not upset or irate, I just don’t get it.

  242. Jale says:

    I think some people are too ” Im going to call CPS on you” happy. Its not as simple as a freaking phone call people. You cant save the world and youre not going to get a gold medal for calling on this mom. CPS is for Abuse/neglect– not because of some pics you found that were not “tasteful” to you. I wont even get into it. I think aside from the pics not having anything wrong with them, threatening CPS is a tad over the line.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s