Of course, the language was a bit -- well, a LOT -- more colorful, but the gist is there.
I do understand what you're saying, however.
Even me, as a loving grandfather many times over, I have to avoid patting little ones on the po-po, and touching them as they pass on by.
To grab one and have a hugging and kissing and tickling session, as used to happen in our family for generations, well...one has to be awfully careful, don't they.
It might be okay when I finally get to 95 or so, but I wouldn't bet on that -- even then!
Damned sad commentary on where the country is headed.
Oh well, this being the pentax list, I guess we'd better studiously avoid talking about anything but photographic subject matter...
keith whaley
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Well, according to what I've read, the child in the bathtub
had no "private parts" revealed either. The concern in some
jurisdictions is not so much about the actual nudity, but
that children can be exploited, and that the photos seen may
be but an introduction to something more ...
Keith Whaley wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Here in the US what you've done could be considered child pornography in some places.
I hardly think so, Shel. What would they call it, full upper nudity? Chest high Monty shots? She barely shows his belly button! And in one shot, you can see the [gasp!] upper part of his trousers!
