Pictures from the past.

[rivka]

I never got around to presenting my dissertation data at the primary conference in my field - mostly because by the time I finished the damn thing, the research I was doing was completely separate from my dissertation topic. I always had HIV stuff to present at the Society of Behavioral Medicine. Besides, it's not a conference that tends to bring in many people with either child/developmental interests, or disability interests, so my dissertation topic was off the beaten track for the meeting.

But this year I thought, what the hell. I submitted an abstract based on my dissertation research, and it was accepted for presentation as a poster. (I knew I wasn't going to be offered an oral presentation, given the off-the-beaten-trackness.) Now I'm putting the poster together, which means, among other things, that I pulled out the photos of misbehaving children which I used for our analog measure of abuse potential.

There's a lot more information about the analog task at that link, but essentially, we showed parents slides of various child behaviors and asked them how they would respond. Some of the photos are normal kid stuff, and some of them are really not. There's a mix of normal behaviors, rule violations, destructive behaviors, and dangerous behaviors.

[photos removed]

I thought people might be interested in seeing the photos, so I uploaded about a dozen of them to my Flickr account. You can see the whole set here. (Photos have been taken down.)

Because they're research items, I'm only going to leave them up for a few days - so look now, if you're curious.

Comments

Wow.

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

Some of those are really disturbing, like the one with the gun. I felt sure it wasn't a toy.

Re: Wow.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

It is a real gun. That's the only child who isn't an actor - he's the son of the man who developed the measure. He didn't feel that he could ask anyone else to let their kid do that, even just for a photo, but he felt comfortable with his own son's understanding of gun safety.

Re: Wow.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

See, the one that worried me for the child actor was the one with the porn. I was really hoping the cover was put on another magazine, although I felt the cover was really more than a kid that age should see frankly.

Re: Wow.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

My brother and his family took me to lunch last Saturday. I don't remember the context, but I said something about sex and my sister-in-law said "[Daughter] doesn't know anything about sex!" I said "She's 12, I'm sure she has some idea about it." Their daughter gave me an "of course I know" look and before they left, I gave her my card in case she wants to talk about it.

I'm not nearly as worried that kids know/see things as that they understand it.

Re: Wow.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's any good way for a six-year-old boy to really understand a highly-sexualized picture of a woman in a thong, but I particularly don't think there's any good way for him to understand what would be inside.

You don't have to moralize to me about children and sexual knowledge - I'm a sex educator from way back. But age-appropriate sexual knowledge is crucial

Re: Wow.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

I wasn't moralizing, I was recounting an anecdote and stating my personal opinion. You sound a little defensive.

Re: Wow.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's any good way for a six-year-old boy to really understand a highly-sexualized picture of a woman in a thong, but I particularly don't think there's any good way for him to understand what would be inside.

That boy's a lot older than six. I'd guess eleven.

I'm pretty sure that a Penthouse cover was put on an issue of Time magazine, or something.

Re: Wow.

[bosssio.livejournal.com]

I thought the boy in the image was a lot younger than 11, I have to say. However, for me, that meant it didn't worry me that much.

Wildly inappropriate for a child that age, yes, but potentially harmful long term? Nah, if the scenario is "look what i found in daddy's closet!" light level of perusal. I suspect the highly sexualized content of penthouse (which, if I remember correctly, is mainly images of naked women, with a few penetration photos) would go entirely over their heads.

Heck, I think if my kids (age 3 and 16 months) found a copy of penthouse, they'd just think "nursies".

Note, I am not suggesting handing a 6 year old porn - as I mentioned above, wildly inappropriate. And I'd be worried about where he got it - i.e. it wasn't given to him by someone a lot older - which would set off red flags for me for potential abuse.

Re: Wow.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Also, I am really pleased to hear independent confirmation that the pictures cause strong emotional reactions. That's what makes it a worthwhile measure. If most people just saw it as an intellectual exercise, it wouldn't be a good analogue for real parenting.