I don't have strong feelings about her one way or the other, but I wouldn't put any kind of nude pictures of my kid online, no matter how old they were.
Also, her birth story about Nella was extremely upsetting to some of my friends with DS kids.
I don't have particularly strong feelings about Kelle in general. I found Nella's birth story to be touching, though if they did have some knowledge/suspicion of her diagnosis before the birth that would certainly detract from the raw and authentic feel that makes the story so compelling. Her photo-heavy, always positive blog does feel a bit sanitized, but I have never felt like she was really a bad mom.
The picture, however, is totally inappropriate, particularly given the fact that her identity and that of her kids is so public. I don't really see how one could think that was okay, and I do question whether she posted it because she is just that clueless, too self-involved to process that her naked child was in the picture, or actively courting controversy to drive up blog traffic.
Really? It's the INTERNET. Perverts and psychos everywhere have access to naked photos of her 3 year old. I don't post pics of my kids fully clothed anywhere except my private facebook page and even that makes me nervous.
Yeah and if the internet ceased to exist perverts would go back to jerking off to the Sears catalog. I don't understand why people have to be so paranoid about something we have no control over. The fact remains that 90% of children who are molested are molested by a close friend of relative.
"Something we have no control over" ponder that for a moment. Clearly, this child's own mother - the one who is supposed to protect her from things - is the one who had enough control to take the photo and put it online. Not the child. Horrible judgement call.
You can site "facts" all you want and the likelihood is there that more children will be groomed by predators who they know, but I sure hope you have a change of heart once it's your child in this world.
The chances of a pervert finding where the person in a Sears catalog, who is wearing more clothing than this, rather than a child whose Mother is a blatant oversharer is going to take significantly more work. This isn't a victimless scenario.
I don't have strong feelings about her one way or the other, but I wouldn't put any kind of nude pictures of my kid online, no matter how old they were.
Also, her birth story about Nella was extremely upsetting to some of my friends with DS kids.
Do you mind if I ask why it was upsetting?
Dunno, really. One of my good friends said something about how it bothered her that she wanted to "run away" from the DS child (I never read the birth story in it's entirety, so I have no frame of reference). The other three people who were turned off by it just said they found it very upsetting...I didn't press for details.
I'm not okay with this, I think it's bad how so many people just put all these pictures of their kids out there and don't think about the repercussions.
Really? It's the INTERNET. Perverts and psychos everywhere have access to naked photos of her 3 year old. I don't post pics of my kids fully clothed anywhere except my private facebook page and even that makes me nervous.
Yeah and if the internet ceased to exist perverts would go back to jerking off to the Sears catalog. I don't understand why people have to be so paranoid about something we have no control over. The fact remains that 90% of children who are molested are molested by a close friend of relative.
So we shouldn't try to protect them from the other 10% too?
There are lots of things I can't "control" but I still sure as hell try to avoid/prevent them. I can't control if someone decides to try and rape me but I sure as hell can take precautions against it happening. Same idea.
Yeah and if the internet ceased to exist perverts would go back to jerking off to the Sears catalog. I don't understand why people have to be so paranoid about something we have no control over. The fact remains that 90% of children who are molested are molested by a close friend of relative.
So we shouldn't try to protect them from the other 10% too?
There are lots of things I can't "control" but I still sure as hell try to avoid/prevent them. I can't control if someone decides to try and rape me but I sure as hell can take precautions against it happening. Same idea.
Like what to you do? Do you not wear skirts above the knee? No drinking out of beverages you didn't pour yourself? I hate to sound like a broken record but most people that are raped are raped by someone they know.
And yeah, I'm not gonna put naked pictures of my kids on the internet but I'm also not the type of person to use Instagram in the first place.
I don't have particularly strong feelings about Kelle in general. I found Nella's birth story to be touching, though if they did have some knowledge/suspicion of her diagnosis before the birth that would certainly detract from the raw and authentic feel that makes the story so compelling. Her photo-heavy, always positive blog does feel a bit sanitized, but I have never felt like she was really a bad mom.
The picture, however, is totally inappropriate, particularly given the fact that her identity and that of her kids is so public. I don't really see how one could think that was okay, and I do question whether she posted it because she is just that clueless, too self-involved to process that her naked child was in the picture, or actively courting controversy to drive up blog traffic.
I appreciate the honesty with which she wrote about her birth story, but I really couldn't get past the over the top planning of it all. From the "birth song" to the baby party favors to the custom champagne glasses with the baby name on them, I was giving her a major eye roll.
Really? It's the INTERNET. Perverts and psychos everywhere have access to naked photos of her 3 year old. I don't post pics of my kids fully clothed anywhere except my private facebook page and even that makes me nervous.
Yeah and if the internet ceased to exist perverts would go back to jerking off to the Sears catalog. I don't understand why people have to be so paranoid about something we have no control over. The fact remains that 90% of children who are molested are molested by a close friend of relative.
My kids aren't in the Sears catalog, either. Pervs are pervs but that doesn't mean I am going to serve them up a free naked picture of my 3 year old. You do your best to protect your kids, I still vote her actions are questionable.
So we shouldn't try to protect them from the other 10% too?
There are lots of things I can't "control" but I still sure as hell try to avoid/prevent them. I can't control if someone decides to try and rape me but I sure as hell can take precautions against it happening. Same idea.
Like what to you do? Do you not wear skirts above the knee? No drinking out of beverages you didn't pour yourself? I hate to sound like a broken record but most people that are raped are raped by someone they know.
Are you serious?
First of all, so what? It doesn't matter if the rapist is known or not just like it doesn't matter if the internet perv stealing naked kids pictures is known or not.
Second, skirt length is also irrelevent and your comment is borderline offensive. There are a lot of things one can do to be precautious that have nothing to do with how one dresses: I don't finish a drink at a bar that I have left unattended, I have taken several self defense classes, I have learned from my policeman father that no matter what you never ever go to a second crime location - the fight starts immediately, I have tried to make trusting my instincts the norm, I make sure I don't have to walk back to parking structures on my own, etc.
No, I can't control if an internet pervert wants to be, well, perverted, but I can try to control his or her opportunity to do so just like I can't control if a rapist wants to rape me but I can try to control the opportunity for him to be successful.
There is a huge difference between a kid on a beach in Europe (or the U.S.) and posting a pic of your developmentally delayed 3 year old on an internet feed with 26K+ followers.
I was following this because it was brought up on another forum I am on. She deleted a couple hundred comments, but within those was her saying that she appreciated the concern, but felt comfortable posting it. THAT was what made me irate. She was being called out on something that people felt uncomfortable about and were showing concern for her daughter and she blew it off. Plus, that little girl deserves some dignity and privacy FFS.
Sorry, this is a soapbox issue for me. Baby bums on blankets are one thing, but a 3 year old who doesn't even know that her photo is being taken? Hell no. If I can tell if your child is a boy or a girl from the photo, it should NOT be posted online. Period. Oh, and add to it that this particular 3 year old (and her sister, I suppose) is the sole source of income for an entire family. Ew.
It's where someone takes you. For instance, you're walking down the street and someone with a gun tells you to get in the car and drives you to an abandoned house. That house is the 2nd crime location.
It's where someone takes you. For instance, you're walking down the street and someone with a gun tells you to get in the car and drives you to an abandoned house. That house is the 2nd crime location.
Huh? I was taught to not fight with someone with a gun.
Anyway I'm partly playing devil's advocate because I hate when people just bash bloggers because they don't like them. If someone on MM posted this picture it would be "hey so and so, you may want to remove that photo." Instead she's exploiting her special needs child, she staged the photo for more blog hits, she wasn't supervising her child in the bathtub, who eats icecream in the tub?!, her raw emotions after discovering her child has special needs were too raw for you, etc. Just really over the top to something that she probably didn't think about when she posted one of the dozens of pictures she probably posts everyday. Like I don't think about rape scenarios when I leave the house.
Is this an actual thing? So if someone has a gun on you, you people think you will be the one calling the shots? Wohkay.
Kind of, but not sure. I could just piss myself. If there's a chance to run though (like, they don't have me in a headlock or something) then I am going to run. I think it's harder to hit your target than you think (especially a moving one).
I can't say for sure I'd definitely run - but I'd try really hard not to go to another location.
And honestly, it might be better to be shot right away then raped/tortured and then shot. :X
Oh yeah, run for your life woman. But isn't that common sense? Like before you saw that Oprah episode everyone was like "sure, dark weapon yielding stranger, I'll get in your vehicle?"
And this reminds me I still haven't bought the mace I posted about two years ago and it's that time of year again when I have to walk home late.
I learned on Oprah you never go to the second location. You scream, run, fight - but no second location willingly because you will most certainly die.
Is this an actual thing? So if someone has a gun on you, you people think you will be the one calling the shots? Wohkay.
Absolutely I'm calling the shots. If he is willing to shoot you where you are what do you think he will do to you in the locale of his choosing? The fight starts immediately.
NQB, is it legal to carry pepper spray/mace in NY? In some states you either a) need a permit or b) its illegal.
I don't think it is. I think that's what I discovered when I looked into it last time. But it's not legal to attack me in the dark of night either so I will take my chances.*
*or probably not, my boss will probably refuse to let me leave by myself again this year.
Anyway I'm partly playing devil's advocate because I hate when people just bash bloggers because they don't like them. If someone on MM posted this picture it would be "hey so and so, you may want to remove that photo." Instead she's exploiting her special needs child, she staged the photo for more blog hits, she wasn't supervising her child in the bathtub, who eats icecream in the tub?!, her raw emotions after discovering her child has special needs were too raw for you, etc. Just really over the top to something that she probably didn't think about when she posted one of the dozens of pictures she probably posts everyday. Like I don't think about rape scenarios when I leave the house.
I might agree with you if she took the picture down after the comments came in about the picture. She defended the picture and left it up. If she was clueless regarding the picture she should have gotten a clue once so many people voiced their concerns. If this happened on MM people would give her the benefit of the doubt at first, but wouldn't for long if she justified it and didn't take it down.
I carry pepper spray in my right coat pocket. JUST TRY ME, lol.
It is legal in Chicago. Not sure if it's okay for me to take it to work/school, but I feel much safer with it. Hospitals attract all kinds of folk and I leave my apartment at 5:20am to get to clinicals on time, so it's pitch black for my entire commute.
NQB are you ok? You sound kinda irrational and not yourself in this thread.
Yes it is a thing not to go with someone who has a gun. Better to try to escape and be killed before getting shoved in a car, raped, tortured and then killed.
I also watched an Oprah episode on this. I learned that
Thanks but I'm fine. I think it's 100% absurd that an hour of television was devoted to that and that people are preaching it as some sort of self-preservation tool. Who, if given a choice, would get in a car with an attacker?
Post by vanillacourage on Jan 21, 2013 22:37:48 GMT -5
That's the thing - even if you're not explicitly given a choice, even if they have a gun, you don't get in the car. Whatever they are going to do to you at the next location is likely far worse than what will happen to you if you fight back. Advice I've read is to run as fast as you can, in a zig- zag fashion if possible. There's only a moderate chance that an unskilled criminal can actually hit a quickly-moving target, and a smaller-still chance that they'd connect with a vital organ.
And yeah, ditto the others that your responses in this thread are harkening back to the grammar fiasco.
That's the thing - even if you're not explicitly given a choice, even if they have a gun, you don't get in the car. Whatever they are going to do to you at the next location is likely far worse than what will happen to you if you fight back. Advice I've read is to run as fast as you can, in a zig- zag fashion if possible. There's only a moderate chance that an unskilled criminal can actually hit a quickly-moving target, and a smaller-still chance that they'd connect with a vital organ.
And yeah, ditto the others that your responses in this thread are harkening back to the grammar fiasco.
Oh like it's a crocodile? LOL. No really that is great. If someone is bigger than you and has a gun then good luck. I don't think any amount of watching Oprah is going to change the outcome and it's a little surprising to me that so many of you feel differently.
NQB, earlier you questioned that exact same scenario and said that you were taught to not fight when someone has a gun. I'm confused.
I was specifically thinking of the mugging a year or so back in NYC when the woman tried to talk to the mugger and convince him not to take her purse. If someone wants your purse you give him your purse. If someone wants to kill you, then they're probably going to try to kill you no matter what.
This thread is getting weirder than the 'Can the TSA see inside my vagina' thread.
Most handguns wielded by an average user have an effective range of about 50 yards or less(assuming your attacker isn't a trained marksman here.) This number can be far less if the shooter isn't used to a moving target or is untrained, like 20-30 feet.
As to who would get in a car with someone holding a gun on them--lots of people. Most people will do whatever they're told when staring down the barrel of a gun.
You're not making any sense right now. You seem to be flip flopping between two different point of views
The poster way back at the start of this tangent said she can prevent child abuse just like she prevents herself from being raped. All I am trying to say is thinking you have the secrets to ward off a random act of violence is naïve. I don't think I've said anything to contradict that. I didn't see the Oprah special.
I'm referring to your comments beginning with the "second crime location" post.
When she first posted that I thought the gun was actually at my head. I didn't realize there was a chance to run. If there is a chance to run of course you run. I didn't realize this was in dispute. Can we stop this yet? I have three more hours of the bachelor to watch?