Long and short of it: Kelle posted a pic of herself and very visible in the background is her fully nude (frontside) 3 year old special needs child.
I have pretty strong {negative} feelings about Kelle anyways but would have issue with this regardless of who it was (though knowing that her last name, address, school name, etc are all public I think bothers me even more). And in true Kelle form, legions of fans pounced on nay sayers and she deleted any negative comments on the blog. The pic is still up.
I can't see the original photo and I guess I can understand why people should be careful about that they put out there but why the hate? It's a baby and she's in the background.
That poor kid. :/ Christ. Didn't MckMama pull the same thing at one time? I read something about her using common pedo search terms on several occasions (not so much using naked pics though, I don't think.)
I've never really followed Kelle, as I don't care to see 577364 pictures of someone's kids. What was everyone's beef with her before this?
Post by gogadgetgo on Jan 20, 2013 22:58:38 GMT -5
I could understand posting the pic if it was mainly of you and your kid photobombed the background. But the framing is mostly the bathtub and its very obvious her kid is very naked back there.
I personally would have taken another pic. It's not that good of an image to begin with.
So is it just pictures of kids without clothes on we're taking issue with? Because I can't even tell you how many naked kids that age I've seen at the beach and pool. Last week I saw a ten year old take her top off at the beach and no one blinked.
I have an issue with the picture because it is so pointless!! If she really wanted to take a picture of her daughter eating ice cream in the tub she would have gotten down on her level and snapped the picture of her upper body. The main focus would be her face and ice cream. (I know there still might have been some nudity but not as much). And I know it's kind of splitting hairs, but a bare chest is very different then full body frontal nudity in my opinion.
It's clear to me she did this for attention/blog hits. It makes me very sad to think she is posting her naked daughter in order to stir up controversy, just for blog hits. If she wasn't doing that she would have taken the picture down when people started to point out that it wasn't appropriate.
And don't even get me started on the fact that her three year old special needs child is standing in the tub on her own while she is taking pictures in the mirror. Seems like the daughter could have fallen and hit her head so quickly.
my cousin recently posted a facebook picture of her 2.5 year old daughter in the tub. her legs are spread and she's in a straddle position. I get that she thinks her kid is cute, but there are some things we just don't need to document with photographs on the internet.
Does anyone remember the blogger who posted pics of her kid, then was contacted by police when they arrested a child pornographer and found a bunch of her pics saved to his computer?
That's why people are taking issue with blogs full of naked kids.
I really, really dislike her. The framing on that photo is super weird and it doesn't make much sense. (I also think posting a naked pic of a kid is different than seeing a naked kid at the pool. There are sick fucks out there that save stuff like this)
Trying for #3; FET 8/18 -- BFN. Leaving things up to chance for now... After three years, three IVFs, and two FETs, we finally have our miracle babIES!
Post by whitepicketfence on Jan 21, 2013 0:21:11 GMT -5
No way in hell would I post a naked picture of my 3 year old on the internet. I don't need that shit saved on some perv's computer.
The picture in question is just odd. It's not like we're talking about Nella's bare chest here; this is a full frontal shot. Why she would ever take a picture from that angle is beyond me. The fact that she then had no reservations about sharing it with the world just shows me that she has horrible judgment.
Post by DarcyLongfellow on Jan 21, 2013 0:48:14 GMT -5
Something about Kelle has always bothered me. She just seems so incredibly fake.
That picture is not appropriate. I wouldn't post a full frontal picture of an infant online, but I may be in the minority. But a full frontal picture of a three year old is not something a smart parent posts online.
I still change my three year old out of her bathing suit and into her clothes right there at the side of the (private) pool. So I don't think toddler/preschooler nudity is a huge deal, but I probably wouldn't change her out in public at the beach or somewhere with a lot of people around. For example, my BFF visited last summer and we gave our two year old daughters a shower together. They were adorable, and we did take pictures. But I wouldn't even email them to my mom because I didn't want them going over the Internet.
There are some sick people out there, sadly.
Also, there's a huge difference between full frontal and the naked chest of a girl who hasn't hit puberty yet (like the ten year old mentioned above).
So is it just pictures of kids without clothes on we're taking issue with? Because I can't even tell you how many naked kids that age I've seen at the beach and pool. Last week I saw a ten year old take her top off at the beach and no one blinked.
You really don't see anything wrong with this? Kids naked or half naked at the beach or pool is one thing, but putting it online for all to see, save, distribute, etc. is a bit different. It is there, forever, and the child doesn't have a say so in the matter.
Sure, it might not be a big deal to YOU, but there are plenty of people who sadly misuse things like this, so why give them fuel... let alone with your own child that you're meant to protect?
Not sure how I feel about a 10 year old taking her top off at the beach either. Actually, I do. It makes me uncomfortable. Nobody may have blinked, but they were probably thinking, "wtf!", and trying not to even glance in her direction.
No way ToddlerB would go topless at a beach at 10.
At this point I think she is keeping the photo up just to make a point.
I actually strongly disagree with a 10 year old not having a top on also. I needed a training bra by the time I was 10. I think once kids get to be school aged they should be keeping their clothes on in public.
Not sure how I feel about a 10 year old taking her top off at the beach either. Actually, I do. It makes me uncomfortable. Nobody may have blinked, but they were probably thinking, "wtf!", and trying not to even glance in her direction.
No way ToddlerB would go topless at a beach at 10.
At this point I think she is keeping the photo up just to make a point.
Eh, I do have mixed feelings. I guess in the US I would think it inappropriate. I think in most of Europe I would be fine with it. I guess because it is more common in Europe. I guess for me it has more to do with social norms vs. some creeper. I assume that there are just as many creepers in the US as Europe? I don't know.
I think in a perfect world that a naked three year old in an innocent family picture posted on the internet is not bad. However, in today's day and age I think you are somewhat dumb if you think that you can post a picture like that and not have it taken to be used elsewhere for horrible purposes. Then again, I think a lot of the pictures out there that aren't naked either are taken and used for horrible purposes as well (thank you photo shop).
Koosh - I've always disliked her. It's amazing to me how she's turned Nella's birth and her reaction into a profit. She just rubs me the wrong way.
Me too. And it has been trickling out via several outlets that they had more than just a passing glimmer of knowledge that Nella had DS before she was born. So basically this beautiful birth story is not quite as authentic as people like to think it is.
Oh and I hate that it is constantly linked to anyone who has a bad NT scan. And a person with a 2 year old who has special needs should not be writing a memoir about raising a child with special needs. She has no idea what the future will hold, wait til she is 10 or so.