Weekend question: Why did Anne Geddes think it not OK to photograph babies?
Anne Geddes, famed photographer of infants, has just released a new book, Beginnings.
The book goes beyond babies,”all the way through the pregnancy to the birth and that first year of caring for a child,” Geddes told ABC News.
Geddes went further to companion seeds and nests and eggs and pods to that “wonderful zone” of early human life, as she called it, combining many “elements of nature that bring forth new life.”
Geddes wrote about Beginnings yesterday at Huffington Post, with an odd conclusion:
I saw a photograph of a bird’s nest, which was an advertisement for what I thought was a photographic exhibition at a small gallery in Sydney. When I arrived, it was a showing of real birds’ nests. I was deeply moved by these little nests, their incredible beauty and fragility, and the mothering instinct at work – the ingenuity and energy channeled into creating a safe place to conceal the young. Everything about them was just so nurturing. And I began to think about these miracles of nature that are concealed in a repeating pattern of secrete, store, burst forth in abundance – seeds, bulbs, cocoons and the miracle of pregnancy.
When I saw the nests, everything began to flow again; everything came back. I felt inspired to start photographing again. I came out of the exhibit and phoned my husband, Kel, and said, “I need to do another book. I just saw these amazing nests.” The whole “Beginnings” project started from there….
“Beginnings” has made me realize that it is OK for me to dedicate my life to photographing new life, babies and pregnant women; really, that is what my work is all about. This is my passion. I think it takes a sense of maturity as a person and as an artist to grow to understand one’s artistry. I have been so inspired all year. I learned it is OK to photograph newborns, to be in awe of the whole process of pregnancy. It is an incredible, momentous, and precious time.
I have the same question several HuffPo commenters had. Why wouldn’t Geddes think it OK to devote her professional career to photographing pregnant mothers and newborns? And why did she choose the liberal Huffington Post to explain herself?
Geddes express similar sentiment to ABC News:
It’s wonderful that I can encourage people to look at their babies, and realise how precious they are, how beautiful they are, and how important they are as human beings; that they should all be cherished and encouraged and valued and there are a lot of children that don’t grow up that way.
It’s OK to be in awe of the whole process because it’s just incredible.
See HuffPo for a slide show of stunning photos from Beginnings. This touching one of 107-yr-old Violet and 3-wk-old Ciara is apparently getting the most buzz (click to enlarge)…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I love Anne Geddes. When I was pregnant I couldn’t look at an Anne Geddes photo without bawling and lots of people got me Anne Geddes cards. Very beautiful.
For pro-lifers its just normal to see babies as unique, precious human beings with their own worth separate from what they can do for us. But for a lot of the world children are not precious in their own right but precious like a possession. Precious because of what the children do for the parents.
Thats the whole pro-abortion mentality at work. If YOU don’t want a baby then abort. If its not a good time for YOU then abort. If YOU want a baby then get a sperm donor… it doesn’t matter if you’re not married or stable. Its what YOU want, not what is best for the child because the child is a possession to be had at all costs or discarded if inconvenient or imperfect.
Maybe she’s hoping the Huffpo crowd’s hearts will begin to melt for
the miracle of LIFE!!!
It’s not PC to acknowledge the miracle of life and the blessing of children.
I think Geddes is struggling with her liberal tendencies.
She won’t admit it now, but perhaps later she might – her prior books seemed to be about “child objects” – she was making photographic art – not really celebrating life. I think she was fascinated by it after she had her daughters, but in a sort of detached way.
I imagine her beliefs are very much like Chris Van Allsburg – the children’s storybook author – who donates considerable amounts of money to Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island, and even serves on the board. While children and families are his audience/customers, he wouldn’t see his approach to killing families as wrong.
So I don’t see Anne being evangelistic here in terms of pro-life, but as more of an apology for revisiting material that undermines her liberal sensibilities towards a controlled utopia. I also think it creates a cultural wave that makes it very hard for pro-aborts to fight. I can hardly imagine that her latest book contains embryoscopies or ultrasounds. She wouldn’t have much control over the image.
Johnson & Johnson own BabyCenter.com. While one would think they would want to see lots of kids and be pro-life, the reality is much different. LDI indicates they support Planned Parenthood – and one could understand why – they make money by selling clinical supplies to PPA. Shades of Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22 anyone?
BTW – Here’s a clip from Anne’s video blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leueE4Pz_bk
Because as society, we want to protect children. If somebody wants to photograph kids, and it isn’t a studio or family member – then the first thought is they are a pedophile. I mean, let’s say a 20 year old boy said he wanted to take pictures of little babies or kids. It isn’t the norm.
I think people are looking WAY too into this in the post. I’m sure she was hesitant because it hasn’t really been done before. And quite frankly, it is more than a little creepy (if you ask me) to dress babies up as odd things and take pictures. Weird career choice!
I think she made that statement because she sees herself as a real artist, and many people saw her work with babies dressed as animals and flowers as cutsey pictures, but not actual “art.” That maybe she was embarrassed that she was earning a living off of greeting cards and calendars and not by selling pieces of original artwork, but now she’s accpeted that her creative images of babies really ARE art, they are just enjoyed by the masses rather than just the educated elite, and that’s ok!
I agree with Chris…the sales pitch for her book sounds like an apology.
She feels the need to give her audience intellectual permission to “give in” and explore a forbidden curiosity (through the safety of photography). As if babies elicit some strange taboo pleasure that both attracts and repels. It’s as if she were selling pornography!
Like the alien characters on Star Trek… She treats her pictures of babies like fascinating half-breed humanoids from a scary foreign world.
I love these pictures – the fragility and beauty of life – so carefully and lovingly depicted. Too beautiful for words.
I love to use these in Pro-life displays and posters. Truly art – man-made and God-made, for sure!
Thanks for that video, Chris. Very interesting.
I suspect that what may be behind Anne’s comments about being OK with dedicating her career to the particular subject of babies and pregnant women is a concern that is widespread in the art world. And this is a certain preoccupation with not becoming stale and repetitive–losing one’s creative spark, so to speak. Also, in the art world there is a tendency to look down on art that is made to be popular–that you are not doing serious art if you care about the public liking it. “Serious” artists are supposed to be always in tune with the changing realities of the world and their own inner lives. And also, there is a real suspicion of trying to make art that is beautiful in a popular sense. Anne’s work does not quite fit into the elitist art world ideas of what serious artists should be doing with their careers. She stays with one subject area. She obviously cares about beauty in a popular sense, and she seems just as, if not more, interested in the meaning and beauty and value of what can be found inherently in the natural world, rather than endlessly chasing some enigmatic path of finding and expressing an evolving inner self.
So, it may be that Anne’s comments reflect a decision on her part to not be concerned with the opinions of the art world elites about what she does, and to decide that it is OK to stay focused on one thing, that it is OK to photograph subjects as if they have their own inherent meaning and value and beauty.
This is just an intuition, but this would be my interpretation of her comments.
I also agree that her images in the past, though intriguing and striking and often beautiful, do suggest a certain slightly odd aesthetic detachment from the unique human person that is each baby. Almost a little bit like the babies are a means to an end (a disconnection between the cuteness and arresting quality of the images and the unique personhood of each baby). I don’t know if this is fair to Anne’s true personal disposition. But some of the images suggest this a little bit, to me at least.
So, I suspect she probably has struggled with creating images that are very popular and that I’m sure have made a lot of money, and yet still being able to see herself as a genuine artist.
I just saw len’s comment above and I agree completely.
As for the pictures themselves…thumbs up. High quality art.
Her pictures reach in and touch upon the hearts nerve. That is what some the best art is seeks to do. Like them or not, for many people, she succeeds at this…evidenced by the comments on this post and others.
Rightly presented, pictures like this could be used effectively in pro-life activism.
I considered Geddes’s earlier work rather creepy and exploitative. I believe anyone who’s naked in a photo should give consent first, or, at least, not be singled out. I’d even extend that rule to babies, unless there were a more serious point to the photo, such as pointing out the humanity in an unborn child. Other than that, if the baby’s naked in the picture, then Mommy and Daddy should be equally naked in the picture.
And has anyone else see the old Geddes picture of a baby hanging from the ceiling in a net-bag, as though the baby is a five-pound bag of onions? No one else was a bit disturbed by that?
I have a couple of Anne Geddes’ books..just because I love to look at babies. If we’re talking about a true ARTIST, though,(props aside) look at the babies themselves…God does excellent work, doesn’t He!? :)
I think she made that statement because she sees herself as a real artist, and many people saw her work with babies dressed as animals and flowers as cutsey pictures, but not actual “art.” That maybe she was embarrassed that she was earning a living off of greeting cards and calendars and not by selling pieces of original artwork, but now she’s accpeted that her creative images of babies really ARE art, they are just enjoyed by the masses rather than just the educated elite, and that’s ok!
I agree completely, len. I think that her work has a reputation as being kind of Hallmarky and not-real-art-y, and now she is settling into herself as an artist and being OKAY with the idea of herself as an artist who takes pictures of adorable babies in adorable poses. Art can be beautiful, but to be taken seriously it is usually more than merely adorable – which to be honest is how a lot of her previous work came off, to me and to a lot of other people.
I haven’t seen this new book, but that one picture posted here, with the old woman, is truly beautiful. It’s not merely adorable – it seeks to find the essence, the almost bittersweet reality, behind the cuteness. So perhaps she is entering a more artistic phase of her career – photographing the things she loves, as she’s always done, but doing it with more purpose than simply capturing an adorable image on film. A baby dressed up like a pea in a pod is family-slideshow material – and I have to admit that some of her work in that vein bothers me a bit, with its use of babies as almost props. I find it oddly dehumanizing, in a weird way – like, oh, look, a puppy in a sweater! a kitten playing with yarn! a baby posed in costume! I don’t know, it’s hard to articulate.
I think she made that statement because she sees herself as a real artist, and many people saw her work with babies dressed as animals and flowers as cutsey pictures, but not actual “art.” That maybe she was embarrassed that she was earning a living off of greeting cards and calendars and not by selling pieces of original artwork, but now she’s accpeted that her creative images of babies really ARE art, they are just enjoyed by the masses rather than just the educated elite, and that’s ok!
I agree completely, len. I think that her work has a reputation as being kind of Hallmarky and not-real-art-y, and now she is settling into herself as an artist and being OKAY with the idea of herself as an artist who takes pictures of adorable babies in adorable poses. Art can be beautiful, but to be taken seriously it is usually more than merely adorable – which to be honest is how a lot of her previous work came off, to me and to a lot of other people.
I haven’t seen this new book, but that one picture posted here, with the old woman, is truly beautiful. It’s not merely adorable – it seeks to find the essence, the almost bittersweet reality, behind the cuteness. So perhaps she is entering a more artistic phase of her career – photographing the things she loves, as she’s always done, but doing it with more purpose than simply capturing an adorable image on film. A baby dressed up like a pea in a pod is family-slideshow material – and I have to admit that some of her work in that vein bothers me a bit, with its use of babies as almost props. I find it oddly dehumanizing, in a weird way – like, oh, look, a puppy in a sweater! a kitten playing with yarn! a baby posed in costume! I don’t know, it’s hard to articulate.
She has one photograph of a tiny preemie being held in one hand. I have not been able to find a print of it, but I’ve always thought it would be a WONDERFUL pro-life statement!
Oh, hey, I think I found it:
http://ewcouture.squarespace.com/news-musings/tag/baby-photography
It’s called Jack and Maneesha
I just thought I would add that for those of you who like Anne Geddes-type stuff, you might want to keep an eye out for the book that will result from the blog Mila’s Daydreams. This woman took pictures of her baby with intricate story-tale-esque settings and they are whimsical and adorable, etc. She appears to have taken most of them down over copyright concerns, but you can see the first picture and thumbnails of others here: http://milasdaydreams.blogspot.com/ and she does appear to have an actual book in the works.
Ms Geddes’ words seem to have some hidden meaning. I don’t want to speculate on what she had in mind. I do find it curious that she posted her words at HuffPo though. HuffPo is known to be a left-leaning site that promotes “pro-choice”. It is possible that she may have received some criticism of her subject matter from the pro-aborts. Oftentimes women who have undergone abortions have difficulty viewing images of babies.
Peg,
One of my all time faves!! :)
Darlajune,
Women that have had abortions and have not found hope and healing most likely do not appreciate them.
As a post abortive mom who is forgiven-I love them!! PRECIOUS!
I’v always seen the pro-choice side struggling with their feelings, unless they’re in total denial or downright bloodthirsty. They go from ambivilence to hypocrisy to compartmentalization.
It gives me the creeps when I recall that the same annoucer for many democratic pro-choice campaign commercials, also did a voiceover for one of the major disposable diaper companies.
Peg:
Thanks for the link. How anyone can look at “Jack and Maneesha” and still be a pro-abort is beyond me.
It is a difficult thing to come from the cave of liberal PC about babies and emerge into the light. It can be a blinding experience, and as Geddes shows one may take some time adjusting to the light.
I respect that she has her own personal style, but hmmm, her style is not really my “cup of tea”. Babies are so cute without being accessorized. Dirty onions? A baby on top of an egg? An elderly lady with wild hair? Is all that supposed to be beautiful? Is there a photo of a pregnant lady that just isn’t in the slideshow? The womb is where it all begins.
Yes, Janet. The Anne Geddes book I have “Cherished Thoughts With Love” is full of pregnant belly pictures. :)
Scott – you’re welcome!
Peg – if you watch the video link I posted – you’ll see Maneesha all grown up – 16 years old. I think this has a lot to do with her return to the subject – one can almost see the hands (Jack) being a nest of sorts for Maneesha. She has a new photo of Maneesha holding a preemie now.
Alexandra – I agree – I think she’s struggling with something that is transcendent. I think Dr. Nadal is right – she’s coming into some unusual light.
From what I can gather from her comments in videos etc. – this project seems to be about life as a process, with her photographing flowers blooming etc. and comparing that to human life. I don’t think her motivations are pro-life – but aren’t nefarious either.
After checking out some http://www.babycenter.com informational videos I found them to be scientifically inaccurate – skewed to pro-abort language - for instance, pointing out a blastocyst and the voiceover says those cells clustered there are a “fertilized egg” and “the inner cell mass will become your baby…” is very misleading. It already is your baby. The single celled zygote through grown adult is always a human being. He may become a pianist or doctor or engineer or author, but he is always your child. It’s interesting – according to the video at 5 weeks, it becomes “your baby”.
More accurate and much better are the materials found at http://www.ehd.org/
I don’t like these pictures precisely because I love babies. Look at that top picture. The child is stripped naked and plopped on a big fuzz ball. What, if any, safety precautions were taken to ensure the child didn’t stir and tumble off that thing? As far as the picture of the baby with the white curls, I sure hope that’s a “photo-shop” job. Otherwise, why put that white crap all over a chid’s head? Well come to think of it, that’s the only body-covering that poor kid has. I’m disgusted.
Never liked Anne Geddes. Babies are not props.
I agree with you Cranky Catholic. Babies are not props!
A professor of mine once “smuggled” a book into school containing wonderfully vivid pictures of women and their babies. It was a children’s book about the human body, and it did contain nudity, though it was tasteful. Was banned in the US in the 1970’s on counts of obscenity.
Can’t have nudity because it might harm teh_children!
Are you serious? Pro-choicers responsible for Geddes’ squeamishness? Stanek, you must be reaaaally stretching to find material. Censorship has always been a “conservative” undertaking in the US: the Comstock Laws against obscenity invoked to ban the sale of contraceptives in the US at the turn of the century, school boards heatedly debating whether school libraries should stock “Heather Has Two Mommies” and Maurice Sendak’s “In the Night Kitchen”…
Thanks to conservatives who somehow think NOT talking about sex with kids means kids won’t find out about it in other ways, we have a whole generation of kids growing up learning about sex from porn they find on the Internet without anybody talking to them about what it really looks like, and what it should be: fulfilling and respectful. But all they get is, “You have to wait until marriage (even though by the time you finish school and college and find a career you’ll be nearly 30) to even think about sex and don’t worry about contraception because sex is supposed to be selfless which means that women can’t choose when to get pregnant, and if you fail to attain this (ridiculous) moral standard you’ll probably get chlamydia and your baby will probably end up doing drugs if you have him/her outside of wedlock.”
“your baby will probably end up doing drugs if you have him/her outside of wedlock.”
Uh Megan, babies can’t do drugs but you are spot on that these babies are more likely to grow into teens/young adults who abuse drugs if they were born out of wedlock.
Megan: “But all they get is, “You have to wait until marriage (even though by the time you finish school and college and find a career you’ll be nearly 30) to even think about sex…”
Well, gosh. Seems like one would be too busy to think about sex, anyway…
— bmmg39, 37 years of age, never thinking about sex
Megan,
Wow.
Your last paragraph is two sentences long! That’s a record.
Megan,
….sex is supposed to be selfless which means that women can’t choose when to get pregnant, …
In reality, most women cannot choose when to get pregnant. Sure, contraception helps reduce the odds (although it’s questionable whether the side effects are worth it) but ask women who were on contraception for 5-10, or 15 years and now cannot get pregnant if they wish they’d changed their lifestyle earlier. They are spending their life savings (and their husband’s) on fertility treatments. In these economic times, abstinence sounds like a more reasonable option than ever; it’s not just a “moral” option. Then there’s the fact that (most pro-aborts and moral relativists won’t admit it) contraception fails and the contraceptive mentality can lead to a general disrespect for human life… abortion.
In reality, most women cannot choose when to get pregnant. Sure, contraception helps reduce the odds (although it’s questionable whether the side effects are worth it) but ask women who were on contraception for 5-10, or 15 years and now cannot get pregnant if they wish they’d changed their lifestyle earlier. They are spending their life savings (and their husband’s) on fertility treatments.
Janet, that’s true. I’ve mentioned this before, and people just don’t seem to get that “controlling one’s fertility” does not include the ability to choose when one becomes pregnant. It means “birth control and abortion if necessary.” It doesn’t usually go both ways. When we WANT to become pregnant (which would be – I guess – attempting to “control one’s fertility” in the direction of LIFE), we really can’t guarantee anything. And calling abortion “controlling one’s fertility” isn’t accurate in the least. You haven’t controlled anything with an abortion. You’ve LOST the illusion of “control” which is why now you have to take a life so you can continue to live in your illusion.
So I guess the solution is to just get married young and have as many kids as the body will allow. Why bother even using a condom if it has an inherent failure rate? Why even use a seat belt when driving if it’s not guaranteed to save you? Heck, why even drive?
How is what you are doing working for you, Megs?
See Carla, you lose the “pro-woman” mentality when the girl in question isn’t contrite or hysterical. It’s kind of funny. So go ahead, dig a little more if you’d like. If you must ask, I highly recommend the copper IUD if one is in a longterm, stable relationship. Much more effective than consistent reliance on a barrier method :)
“If you must ask, I highly recommend the copper IUD if one is in a longterm, stable relationship.”
You mean when you are (or he is) good enough to have sex with but not good enough to marry and start a family with. :)
The first part of your comment makes no sense to me, Megs.
The second part? Ok. IUD.
Would you ever have another abortion?
Lots of people have relationships with people who are good enough to have sex with and not good enough (or not the right person, the right time, or some other reason) to marry and start a family with. Who says you should only have sex with the person you marry?
Lots of people have relationships with people who are good enough to have sex with
Yup, and we all know that if lots of people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do.
“Yup, and we all know that if lots of people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do.”
Obviously, not necessarily. Your earlier comment, however, (despite the smiley at the end) seemed to suggest that if we don’t like someone enough to marry them then we shouldn’t be having sex with them. I’m just pointing out that there is a wide range of opinions on that topic, and yours is not necessarily right. Nor is it one I agree wih. If it works for you, I’m 100% happy about that. if something different works for the rest of us, I hope you can be happy about that too.
if something different works for the rest of us, I hope you can be happy about that too.
I can’t be happy if something different often leads to the killing of preborn humans.
“Yup, and we all know that if lots of people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do.”
Do you go to church Praxedes?
I am a member of the Catholic Church. I meet Christ through the Power of the Eucharist in many different buildings called churches (and once in a hospital).
Are you interested in joining me sometime?
Not everyone gets pregnant when they have sex outside marriage. Not everyone who does gets an abortion.
Lots of people go to church. You think it is the right thing to do. I don’t.
Lots of people have abortions. They think it is the right thing to do. You don’t.
So “Yup, and we all know that if lots of people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do” applies equally to both situations.
Thankyou but no I will not be joining you.
Yes, and married women get abortions. Shock.
Praxedes, you need to let yourself off the hook for whatever goof-up you had 20+ years ago. It’s getting to be a drag. No contraceptives, ever, for anybody? Really? Also–and I know this is hard to believe–people attach meanings to sex and marriage that differ from yours! And they can still have mutually satisfying relationships!
Also Carla, I never intended to have kids of my own, always wanted to adopt. But if I did get pregnant again, I would probably have the baby, and definitely keep it.
Lots of people go to church. You think it is the right thing to do. I don’t.
Lots of people have abortions. They think it is the right thing to do. You don’t.
Maybe this is just me, but when I go to church, I don’t typically have to kill someone to get to my destination. At least, I certainly try not to. :D See, going to church and aborting a living human are two different things. (Wow, did I just actually have to type that?)
Goodnight to the pro-abort freelovesexuserabortionhappyjoyjoy party. And to the pro-lifers, too. :)
Pity Scott Roeder didn’t feel the same way.
Going to church and eating every meal at ‘Happy Fatman’s Greasy Spoon’ are two different things too. But once again, “Yup, and we all know that if lots of people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do.” could be applied. Do you realize how many people have sex without getting married first? “Yup, and we all know that if lots of people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do.” Lots of people give to charity. “Yup, and we all know that if lots of people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do.”
Just because you don’t believe in it or practice it doesn’t make it wrong or immoral. The same applies to abortion.
‘sexuser’? what’s that all about?
Megan,
I am very happy to hear that. :)
Where would you like to adopt from?
Let’s not let Megan derail everything here. Trolls gonna troll.
I always kind of liked Anne Geddes – when I was maybe ten or eleven someone gave me one of her books. Not sure what she meant by saying she realized it was okay to be in awe of the whole process of pregnancy, but I don’t think that part is about the artistic vs. commercial aspects of her work.
“So “Yup, and we all know that if lots of people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do” applies equally to both situations.”
Lots of people hug their kids often and lots of people hit their kids often. Some do both. This doesn’t mean hitting kids is OK.
Megan, I don’t spend hours weekly condoning the poor choices I made years ago. Acknowledged, asked forgiveness, moved on.
You need to let yourself off the hook for your abortion.
Not sure what she meant by saying she realized it was okay to be in awe of the whole process of pregnancy, but I don’t think that part is about the artistic vs. commercial aspects of her work.
I don’t know, I kind of think it is. I mean like artistically, there is an overall implication that you should be interested in less obviously beautiful things – that you should be seeking out beauty rather than merely capturing the obvious. I could see the same quote coming from maybe Thomas Kinkade, ie “I realized that it is okay to be in awe of the beauty of light on quaint domestic/natural scenes.” I mean, there is a sort of elitist vibe to art that says that it’s okay to be in awe of Rothko’s rectangles, but more readily identifiably beautiful images are for “the uneducated masses,” with a few exceptions made for artists like Mary Cassatt. And, like, at a certain point, you can just be like, “You know what, it’s okay to be as in awe of something obviously beautiful as of something whose beauty requires searching and reflection to fully understand.”
It is not unusual or exceptional to find pregnant women and babies beautiful. I can imagine it might be difficult for an artist to come to terms with the fact that what you feel called to portray is, in terms of both subject matter and emotion evoked, neither exceptional nor unusual; and needing to “settle in” to your preference for working in this way regardless of that.
I also don’t think that anyone’s personal opinions on Anne Geddes’ work have really anything to do with being post-abortive or forgiven or whatever; any more than someone’s negative reaction to Marc Chagall has anything to do with being anti-Semitic or uncomfortable with Biblical themes. Marc Chagall is my favorite artist but lots of people who legitimately take no issue with his themes simply don’t like his style. It is entirely possible to just not really find a particular style aesthetically appealing.
hal said : Not everyone gets pregnant when they have sex outside marriage. Not everyone who does gets an abortion.
That may be true – but when people have sex with someone other than the one they are married to, it’s a form of adultery. For all practical purposes, the outside partner is in between the married couple. If adultery is not wrong – why are women jealous, why do men shoot other men, why is there violence committed because of the sex? (Fornication is another form of adultery.)
Some STD’s are non-curable. Bringing those into a marriage is definitely a sign of a prior partner. Abstinence, on the other hand, keeps the marriage bed pure, and the fidelity desired during marriage, is expressed most clearly by fidelity before marriage.
By “outside marriage” I meant before or after marriage, not adultery. I agree that adultery without the permission of your spouse is immoral.
Bringing STD’s into the marriage is not a good thing. It happens. If you cannot live with that risk, insist on testing, and insist on marrying someone who has not had sex before marriage. If you can live with the risk, then you can marry someone who has had prior partners (testing is still a good idea). As to this idea (“the fidelity desired during marriage, is expressed most clearly by fidelity before marriage“) I simply disagree.
I also don’t think that anyone’s personal opinions on Anne Geddes’ work have really anything to do with being post-abortive
Many post abortive women DO have strong reactions and opinions of anything that has to do with babies. It can make them uncomfortable. They avoid the baby aisle at grocery stores and Walmart, they don’t like to go to baby showers. Goes along with the territory of being post abortive.
Do ALL post abortive women have those reactions? No.
Chris:
And some say marriage is best when both partners have seen the world a bit and really know they’re ready to settle down.
Maruader:
Culturally ingrained taboos against “obscenity” make taking pictures of naked women kind of difficult. For ages our culture has been unable to make sense of a pregnant woman’s body–is it sexual? Asexual? It’s a powerful symbol. Hence why pictures of women breastfeeding their babies are banned from facebook. It makes people squeamish. I think this is why there are few decent spaces in public buildings where women may breastfeed. The bathroom? How is that an appropriate environment to nurse a baby?
Carla:
I’d like to do a domestic adoption (and this is all several years down the road, you know what they say about “best laid plans”…). Location will depend on where I end up, though probably close to my family. I’d want to do what’s best for both the child and the birth mom, so maybe stay close to where the baby was born? I’m also looking into adopting from the foster care system–a fun legal backwater to learn to navigate. We’ll see. The one thing I can guarantee a kid is energy. We’ll see how much that changes in five years or so :)
Oh, I know that, Carla. I know that a lot of women experience a significant amount of trauma regarding baby-related products or imagery. But I wouldn’t say that the reason anyone dislikes Anne Geddes is “most likely” because she is post-abortive and has not healed. I have never been particularly fond of Geddes’ work. Neither have my sisters or my mom, really, and none of them have much experience with abortion. It’s just really not my style, and that’s the way it is for a lot of people, and it’s as simple as that.
Alexandra,
I am not saying that either. That those that don’t like Anne Geddes might be post abortive.
Are we fighting? :) Darlajune is who I originally responded to. Maybe what I said makes more sense to her.
Megan,
I have several friends who have adopted from other countries, and several that have adopted children from the US. Open adoption has been wonderful for some young girls I know that gave up their babies. I admire your calling to adopt!! I always wanted to adopt a baby with Down Syndrome. But fear that is slipping away with every birthday I have. :)
hal said: As to this idea (“the fidelity desired during marriage, is expressed most clearly by fidelity before marriage“) I simply disagree.
You can’t disagree with it. It’s a fact. It’s not subject to opinion. There is no possibility of STDs being introduced into a marriage (testing or otherwise) if the spouse is faithful to only one partner, even if that partner is a future spouse.
Hal – it seems you don’t what fidelity means.
You can disagree that fidelity is necessary for a successful marriage, (and I think that was your intent) but you can’t manipulate the meaning of the word and how it’s expressed in a relationship, particularly when it is the ideal expression.
If fidelity doesn’t have an ideal expression of it’s meaning – then it has no meaning at all!
And some say marriage is best when both partners have seen the world a bit and really know they’re ready to settle down.
Megan,
Do you mean travel to distant lands before you get married? OR do you mean sleep with several people, try them on for size so to speak and expose yourself to any diseases they have or the people they slept with have and then settle down? Just checkin.
Chris,
Fidelity = conjugal faithfulness.
It’s the “is expressed most clearly” language I disagreed with. That is an expression of opinion, not fact. I simply disagree that the conjugal faithfulness desired during marriage is most clearly expressed by conjugal faithfulness before marriage. You can have complete fidelity in a marriage despite having many sexual partners beforehand.
Hence why pictures of women breastfeeding their babies are banned from facebook. It makes people squeamish. I think this is why there are few decent spaces in public buildings where women may breastfeed. The bathroom? How is that an appropriate environment to nurse a baby?
I believe the reason those photos are banned from Facebook isn’t because they’re such “powerful symbols” but because our society has grown to view the female breast as nothing more than an object of sexual desire. Other than that, as a nursing mom myself, I actually agree with your above statement.
I understand where she’s coming from. An artist has “pulls” that aren’t necessarily explicable, or understandable, or politically correct. She had that with infants. She needed to refresh her soul. She did.
She wasn’t getting respect. I worked at a bookstore. The manager, at Christmas, would have these tirades about awful Anne Geddes books- he would link them with kitschy sketches of small children, Victorian cut-outs, things like this. Then he would talk about the “beautiful” “formal” work of Robert Mapplethorpe, and another artist- I can’t think of his name- of sexualize nudes of children- and complain that he had to keep those books behind the register. I counted to ten, counted to ten, counted to ten, and then quit.
The sort of person who thinks Anne Geddes work with infants is awful, but Mapplethorpe is wonderful, is not a safe person to work around.
I love the prop/baby pictures. My dad sends me one every year, for my birthday. Me and my brother are the happiest things in his life, and the AG photos in the goofy costumes make him happy, too.
For that matter, think of all the halloween getups kids get up into. It’s like the highest line version of that.
Also, you know how CSLewis talked about the re-enchantment of nature and life, and he illustrated it by having lions popping up here and there? Well, living in a city, near a zoo- I don’t think of lions as forms of reenchantment- but seeing babies pop up in flower hats? that is pretty wonderful.
ari
I’ve always liked Anne Geddes photographs.
I noticed Megan’s recommendation of the use of the IUD. However, I can’t help but wonder if the same women who would use or have used the IUD would also object to the use of medieval chastity belts? Or would those be considered barbaric? As barbaric as a small metal device inserted inside a woman’s uterus that scrapes it and kills any hapless developing child who has the misfortune to implant in said uterus?
So girls, which is more barbaric? Chastity belt? or IUD?
IUD.
If by “child” you mean “zygote,” then yes, the Paragard makes implantation of the zygote in the endometrial lining difficult. But the copper IUD’s first line of defense is spermicidal. The Mayo Clinic website has a good description of how the device works. Also, haven’t felt much “scraping” in my uterus lately. But since you’re an authority on all things contraceptive, maybe I’ll go get it checked out.
You’re grasping at straws. Chastity belt, seriously? By that same logic any foreign object implanted in the body must be a tool of medical-state-patriarchal control: nose rings, braces, metal leg rods, etc. Sooo barbaric. But your point is well-taken. Married women should resign themselves to making babies, lest that pesky condom ruin the couple’s ”selfless love,” or the birth control pill flushes a zygote out of the body. Heck, another poster made a great point: NFP opposes God’s will, too, because it represents the couple’s attempt to thwart fertility. Why not take it to that next level? Every woman should be thrilled to have six+ kids!
Ari: “Then he would talk about the ‘beautiful’ ‘formal’ work of Robert Mapplethorpe, and another artist- I can’t think of his name- of sexualize nudes of children- and complain that he had to keep those books behind the register.”
I hope you don’t mean Jock Sturges. I know there was a great outcry about Sturges’s work, but I believe it was misguided. He doesn’t belong in a category with Robert Mapplethorpe. Mapplethorpe took pornographic images of people — such as the dude sticking a bullwhip up his patoot — whereas Sturges filmed naturist families who were not engaged in sexual acts at all. Both Sturges and Geddes took/take photos of naked people, and neither one is sexual, but at least the people in Sturges’s photos have given consent, which I think is pretty important if you’re going to film a subject who isn’t wearing any clothes.
Of course, all the pictures I have of people include the clothes they like to wear!
Further, breastfeeding pictures are seen as a taboo, not, I believe, because of the “religious right,” but rather by those who are uncomfortable seeing breasts used for their wholesome, natural purpose. They don’t like breasts; they like only “b–bs” or “t-ts,” something you ask your buddy if he got to touch, or something you shout out to random women in New Orleans to “show you.” As far as their wholesome purpose is concerned, no one ever calls it “b–bfeeding” or “t-tfeeding.” Think about it.
Why doesn’t one of you write Ms. Geddes through her website and ask her what she meant instead of speculating?
Then again, perhaps her reason might not bring you the answer you are wishing for.
Sex education is you ally in decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies/abortion and STDs.
Part of sex ed is learning anatomy and physiology. With that, perhaps breasts would not be so damned taboo and we as women not soooo objectified by society.
Also, why is there an assumption here that women who question the intentions of the majority (of visitors in this forum/blog) are trolls, unintelligent (the comment on paragraph length…have fun with my one sentence comments!), “post abortive”, etc…? Again, the passive aggressive jabs are childish because they are uninformed and frankly rude.
Ask and ye shall receive.
I may regret this…
Moon wrote:
Sex education is you ally in decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies/abortion and STDs.
If you’re referring to state-sponsored, school-centered “sex-ed”, I’m afraid the evidence doesn’t support that. If you hadn’t noticed, explicit sex-ed has been quite common in a variety of countries, and the United States certainly doesn’t forbid it (moreso the pity–since the CONTENT and PRESENTERS are as agenda-driven as they are abysmally unqualified); and the rate of “unwanted pregnancies, abortions and STD’s” haven’t taken a nose-dive in any numbers that I’ve seen. (See especially Scandanavia, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc., to see what I mean–and if you suggest that such cultures are “sexually repressed”, I hope you’ll excuse some surprised laughter from your readers.)
Part of sex ed is learning anatomy and physiology. With that, perhaps breasts would not be so damned taboo and we as women not soooo objectified by society.
Ah. So you think that “not talking openly and pervasively about sexual body parts” is the cause of such objectification? Good heavens… one might as well blame rampant alcoholism on a reluctance to talk about or display alcohol! Addictions–including sex addictions–do, in fact, have a way of increasing with exposure to the trigger, not decreasing. The type of “sex education” that you have in mind (would you include explicit pictures/photos? At what age would you begin such exposure?) would only make matters worse, not better… since it supplies no coherent reason NOT to indulge in sexual activity.
Also, why is there an assumption here that women who question the intentions of the majority (of visitors in this forum/blog) are trolls, unintelligent (the comment on paragraph length…have fun with my one sentence comments!), “post abortive”, etc…?
Why do you assume that they’re assumptions? (Perhaps you might follow the blog for a while, and see if that assumption is correct, or not?) Several such trolls (and/or inflammatory posters) have declared that they’re post-abortive; others restrict themselves to raw inflammatory comments (while eschewing politeness, tact, logic, and any other tools used by non-trolls); and still others don’t give a very good representation of their intelligence by their thoughtless comments (though I’ll agree: it’s preferable to call a comment stupid than to call the commenter stupid). “Troll” is a real word, and it really means something. Google it, if you must.
Again, the passive aggressive jabs are childish because they are uninformed and frankly rude.
(*wry look*) Your concern for decorum on this forum is noted and logged.
Ask and ye shall receive.
:) Good! Now, if you’d read the other 99.999%+ of the Bible, and internalize it, you’d get on quite better!