Meg Bitton, a photographer renowned for her portraits of children, is receiving backlash online for posting images of youngsters — some allegedly aged 11 — wearing revealing outfits, smoking, and in t-shirts supporting cannabis. In an age of children growing up and being sexualized too fast, how far is too far?
Bitton is widely regarded as a respected children's photographer, with tens of thousands of followers across various social media pages. Over the last few days, though, a number of photographs have been circulating the Internet for all the wrong reasons. Many are deeming that some of her recent work is highly inappropriate, largely due to the overtly sexual nature, despite her subjects being children.
In one, two young girls are seen pressing themselves against each other, while one has her hand on some money that is tucked into the other's shorts. In a second, Bitton has positioned her child subject in the front seat of a van, wearing barely-there underwear and smoking on a cigarette. Another sees a child so young that she’s likely not even in double digits, bearing a top promoting the legalization of marijuana.
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1035185601664954369
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1035185739355619328
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1033579785241468928
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1033579348144611328
It’s an increasing trend, treating children like adults. Earlier this year, "Lil Tay" gained notoriety online and was giving TV interviews for simply behaving outrageously on Instagram at the age of nine. Meanwhile, celebrities like the Kardashians parade their offspring around in outfits tailored by high-end fashion houses. But these images feel incredibly distasteful and a step too far. Bitton’s subjects are likely old enough to be consciously aware of many of the themes portrayed in the photos. However, positioning them as the subjects within them is in poor taste. It risks putting incredible pressure on these children to be or behave a certain way before they’ve had a chance to figure out who they are as people or the consequences of such behavior. It blurs the lines of how it is or isn't acceptable to behave in front of a minor. And it certainly calls into question the legality of such images; many online are calling it gross at best and pedophilic at worst.
Setting aside the sexual aspect of such images, there is nothing realistic about these photos. They aren’t artistic, documentary style images that capture the livelihood of innocent children. They depict something unrealistic and forced. When was the last time you witnessed 11-year-olds in such pants, gallivanting in the streets, and leaning close to each other in a provocative manner? Never, I hope.
Bitton’s response, written within the comment section on Facebook, was:
Too young for what? To be embracing each other in shorts and tops? Too young to be out at night? Too young to explore? Too young to feel? What are they too young for? What is disgusting?
She claims she is simply depicting a normal child’s evolution into adulthood. Thankfully, the Internet disagrees. Sexualizing children is never justified.
At the time of writing, her Instagram is set to private.
Meg is a close friend. I love her and her work. She is being crucified by a mindless internet mob. Of course I'll go to bat for her. Her images are FAR from 'child pornography.'
No. They clearly are crap and clearly are an attempt at being edgy, so defend it all you want, but...
it's still crap....
but Lisa many of us aren't saying her work is porn. I hear people saying it is exploitative for reasons that have nothing to do with child porn????
Then all professional models are exploited.
And it sure sounds like many are equating it to porn.
How exactly are you "going to bat" for Meg by taking potshots at other users and calling names? That's not exactly the most professional, even practical, approach to handle anything.
Holy hell why do you think everyone is jealous of you? I honestly had no idea who you were.
Because I'm awesome, why wouldn't they be? lol
Lisa, I loved your work the moment I saw it, you are extremely talented at what you do, but your attitude totally blows it. Being considered a public figure in ANY community, comes with responsibility.
Lisa is defending a friend that is not here. Quite a bit of the criticism has been harsh, to put it mildly. Lisa is being quite polite considering the attacks on her.
Lisa you have got to be kidding, right? Do you realize how incredibly insecure that sounds? Do you really think people are jealous of you? Why? Because you can take a good photo? Why would anyone in their right mind be jealous of that?
clutch your pearls... bahahahahahaha
Love you. <3 <3
Ok, people glamorize what they want, that's freedom of speech, you have no censoring power whatsoever, and the day you do, I will be the first to put it down. So bug off, go back to your confederate limbs, and let people be.
Don't bother discussing this with Lisa. She is the exact same as Meg, except in her case, she uses one of her 30 kids to pose in shocking ways to generate clicks. How many guns and kids do you have now Lisa?
Why are you all over this story defending her, Lisa? You know she makes fun of you behind your back right?
Meg is my friend and you are an anonymous nobody. Screw off.
Now you hurt my feelings calling me a nobody. What a stinging rebuke to my sense of self LOL
Meg is not your friend. You might want to think that but deep down you know she's just using you. How much time did you spend on this article alone doing her dirty work? You know she'd never do the same for you.
Meg knows she copied you all those years back (don't you love how she claims to have started 15 yrs ago?) and that she wasn't the pioneer of her "look" (whatever that is) so it's easier for her to make you think she's your friend. She might throw you a few bones here and there but do you really think someone who lives in a million dollar house and wears Hermes scarves is going to be friends with someone like you?
Uh oh, Lisa. What happened to your "....enough guns to annihilate idiots like you...." comment? I thought that one was a very accurate representation of your Keyboard Warrior Personality.
Oh it's still there. You are clearly incapable of reading.
Yep. You're right. It's in the SCREENSHOTS. Because you enjoy posting and then deleting. Or posting and having your comments deleted by the admins. Bless your little heart.
Most of the comments by Lisa are in response to people attacking her. There are a handful arguing facts. Most are just tossing ad hominems and insults.
If you don't like her work then don't buy it. Criticizing her family is beyond decent.
You're responding to the wrong person. I didn't criticize her family.
Pat McEntee Ah, clearly you are late to the game my friend. The reason why it appears that way is because Lisa Holloway has long since changed her comments, and profile picture, for that matter. These are the comments people have been responding to. Appears as though she's just a good at the bait, switch, play victim game, as her buddy Meg. Those screen shots sure do come in handy, don't they?
Hey Lisa-If your daughter takes photos like this and sends them to some elementary boy, or when your son receives pictures like this from his junior high interest, I am guessing you would not be cool with that. I am guessing you would encourage your kids to not do such things... because anyone with any common sense knows these are wrong. Well, good luck guiding them at all cause your moral compass is seriously whack. You will have NO LEG to stand on. They will be able to call you a hypocrite(and justly so). They will be able to point to YOU as the first person that told them that objectifying girls and using people for their own satisfaction is cool. They will be able to say, "my mom is cool with porn." Truly, the shame you should feel as a mother should be crippling. I truly pity your children.
Oh, I'm sure she will be proud of her kids if they did this. But, you'll just have to wait until she gets her 18 kids to school before she has internet time to answer.
Go away.
Don't pity my children. Pity your own pathetic self. My kids are amazing human beings - growing up to be kind, smart, well adjusted people. Guess I'm not doing too badly here. I also taught them to always defend themselves against ignorant assholes such as yourself. We don't do politically correct here, nor do we bend over backwards to please the masses spewing robotic mindless bullshit in this house. NOPE.
Everyone in this subthread, enough. The next person that says anything off topic from discussing this article, swears at another person, or makes any sort of threat will be immediately banned from the site.
A very wealthy photographer in Los Angeles took a look at some of the photos...way too far. He photographs celebrity kids and many Hollywood actors and actresses.
"Sexual activity is not needed in the image to be considered pornography. The images may contain a nude picture of a child that is deemed sexually suggestive and be considered illegal. Child pornography under federal law is the disregard for age of consent for sexual activity in a given state. Some states consider age of consent to be younger than 18 years old, but when child pornography is concerned, any depiction of a minor under the age of 18 engaging in sexually explicit conduct is unlawful."
It is not up to you or any photographer to decide what's legal or not. You don't define this. The DA does not give a fuck how how rich you are or how many likes you have if the kids are from an agency or not. It is up to law enforcement to determine if any of those images may or may not be considered child pornography. They just need one single photo that may have crossed the line, just one. With so many sick fucks out there running websites collecting these images I'll tell you this, they are watching and very closely. If the photographer wanted to become more famous their wish has come true, the fuse is lit.
To any photographer out there reading this do not photograph young children who are posing or being posed in some kind of perceived sexual manner. Don't do it just walk away.
Dumb stuff like this. These kids are models and there parents, some of which are photographers were present along with the production crew when this was filmed. I guess the hate mongers going group to group targeting Meg didn't tell you that. Most likely cause they didn't have a clue and made up their own version to farther their agenda. Real sick group of people that started this. Totally disgusting the things they made up for these images.
HOW is someone defending children sick? She knew what she did and why she did it, for attention. And she drags people like you in to defend her because all she can do is respond with filth and vulgar language, and hate towards all the "idiots" who don't agree with her art.
Because there is no harm done, so nothing to defend children against. I really want to understand why, in this era, we constantly need to victimize everybody, and overreact at everything. Letting people be seems to never be an option, everyone has to interere, censorize, normalize and moralize as they please. I want a time ride to the 70's…
So by your logic, this is okay. As far as I know, an 11 year old can't legally sign a model release form. It has to be signed by a parent or legal guardian. So now we have at least two people that find joy in dressing an 11 year old child like a prostitute and photographing him/her for the pleasure of other adults that deem this practice okay.
In which case, the parents/guardians/"photographers" aren't the victims, it's the 11 year old that's the unwitting victim. The fact that you can defend this says volumes about your character.
You see a girl dressed as a prostitute, I see a girl mimicking Mom. Ever seen the movie "Léon/The professional" (first appearance on screen of Natalie Portman) ?
Children are not holy little stupid things, they know perfectly well how to say no (serve them spinach for lunch, you will see). So they were most likely taking the pictures as a game, with no second thoughts. The problem here is adults and the way they constantly trash things by seeing the devil where he isn't.
I'm glad you are able to read my character in just a few lines because even certified psychiatrists need several hours of interview to do that. You need to teach in med school.
The fact that you justify this is all the education that I need to understand that you promote child exploitation. In my most humble opinion, that is a flawed character.
I take comfort in the fact that Kim Jung Un will soon put an end to your bigotry and deliver the World from your stupidity.
That sure did put me in my place. I bow to your rapier whit and razor like prose. You, sir, are a genius. Well done! :rolleyes:
That was one of the rudest things I have every read.
You know Aurelien, the ‘fact’ that you see a girl mimicking mom somehow just does not justifies these images. You pose yourself here as an innocent adult, you don’t think of anything bad, you are just defending the freedom of artistic expression. Right? Well, hurray for that, but there is something, a teeny weeny bit more complex here, that you just don’t even want to touch the surface of. But that’s ok, you just go on with the same song, and I can only hope you will have a deeper understanding, when you have your own child (or not) You can put me in the same box with mr David Pavlich and the alikes, it won’t hurt me, not even if you think I’m one of those who censorise, moralise, normalise. You know we, parents know some things about children, and I believe the most of us would love to protect ALL OF THEM from people who enjoy this kind of “art”.
Aurélien and Alexander insist on not to understand what we mean. they can not be so stupid. so they keep diverting it on purpose. Leave them alone in their twisted moral world
"I see a girl mimicking mom"
HAAhahahahaAHHHHAAAA. Mom probably wonders why she's single too..
wow, really?? This is your comment? To put down single moms... shame on you. Here I was thinking God was the only person who could judge. Hmmm
No. I'm putting down "moms" who whore out their kids to make "art" and the fact that "mom" probably can't or won't understand HER role in ANYTHING, or else she wouldn't agree to have her child portrayed as a pre-teen prostitute.
These photos aren't a "girl mimicking mom" unless your mom is whore who snorts coke off the back of a Cadillac with a rolled up $100 bill. In which case, mom needs to be a mom and not a whore.
Do you see the difference? I'll be happy to use another example if need be.
But your comment "Mom probably wonders why she's single too...." why say that? You making a statement that of course she is a single mom.. Those were YOUR words..
Did I deny they were my words? I gave you my explanation in terms I believe anyone would understand, perhaps you're just not capable.
But if you need a second round, here goes...
My comment was that a mom who pimps out her child or allows her daughter to "mimick" her slutty form of dress certainly would have NO UNDERSTANDING of HER (the mom) role and would ALSO wonder why NO ONE would want to be married to a slut.
And yes, these are my words too. So what exactly is your point? That I'm "picking on" single moms? No. I'm picking on mothers who pimp out their kids for exploitative photographers and use the excuse of "mimicking mom."
your crazy... YOUR words "Mom probably wonders why shes single too".. implying a single mother would do this.. grow up, get yourself educated and re read what you said. I am totally capable of seeing through the lines here and your comment "Mom probably wonders why shes single too" ... You didn't need to bring up the fact you bet shes single.. low blow..
Perhaps I've given you Bittonites too much credit for comprehension. I see you continue to tell me what I've said despite two responses to clarify.
Go back to the beginning, ok?
"girls mimicking mom"
Girl dresses like a crack whore
Therefore, mom dresses like, or is, a crack whore
Mom is ok with offspring's emulation and fashion sense
Therefore, mom is either too stupid or non-caring, or both, to understand she is responsible for raising a child and not a crack whore
Either way, mom is likely to not be married as most men are not going to marry either a simpleton that can only raise a crack whore wannabe, or she actually is a crack whore.
Therefore, "mom" probably wonders why "dad" left for cigs one night and didn't come back.
Mom's actions made her single (and now she wonders why), NOT mom is single and therefore she would dress up her child for the next skid row fashion show.
Oh, and since your so "capable" of "seeing through the lines," I gave you a little extra room, so hopefully some basic third grade logic will seep in.
Tell Meg we all say, HI, and I do hope the poor dear recovers from her PTSD soon.
- "Therefore, mom is either too stupid or non-caring, or both, to understand she is responsible for raising a child and not a crack whore"
- "Mom's actions made her single (and now she wonders why), NOT mom is single and therefore she would dress up her child for the next skid row fashion show."
...
Question there buddy, how do you stay single?