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.
Well, buddy, no one accidentally gets married do they?
Aurelien Pierre - "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."
Must be nice to have such a simple view of the world. Kids say no when they've experienced things they dislike (spinach), but often don't know how, or why, to say no to things that may not affect them in the immediate, but may much later. Other comments have posted about the damage these photos may have on these girls later, or even sooner when others see them online. Or does online bullying and predators not exist in your part of the internet?
The problem isn't adults "seeing the devil where he isn't" but knowing where he is, and not pretending that placing pre-adolescents in a situation that they don't fully comprehend is asking a little much of a child.
The question most of us are asking is, why? Were these photos part of a true documentation of these girls lives? No. Photojournalism? No. Art. Hardly. Or was it something that many of us find hard to accept as justification for placing these young girls in situations that may have serious consequences in the near future? Maybe. Money? What else would they be for. A quick buck at the expense of some naive young pre-teen that will later have to endure things that you clearly either don't believe happen or just don't seem to grasp.
Aurelien Pierre - "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."
I truly hope they can help you to begin to see the world as it really is.
All he sees is a kid mimicking her mom. Aww, now all those prostitutes can be so proud that their kids want to be just like them when they grow up! @@
Hey, if women want to open their coochie for a few bucks, I'm not judging. But many of them are trafficked by men and forced into that lifestyle (or better yet, run by pimps, like women aren't smart enough to invest their own earnings). I bet you bucks to dollars you don't have a daughter, because if you did, I can guarantee that the thought "oh, I hope my princess sets her sights high and becomes a full blown prostitute snorting coke off the back of another hookers ass with a rolled up 100 dollar bill" will never have crossed your mind.
Were you ever involved with fighting human trafficking? According to US legislation, a person under 18 performing a commercial sex act is a victim of human trafficking. It doesn't matter if that young person does it by choice or not. So the images of those young girls on the street are definitely displaying a reference to human trafficking. That's not subjective, that's plain clear.
It seems you don’t understand. It’s a legal definition, sex labor under 18 is human trafficking. It just is.
Modeling is not a sex act as described in 18 U.S.C § 1591. Nor do these photos come close to child pornography.
The photos are not straight porn, they did not perform a sex act, but there was a reference to human trafficking and the slow person Alexander Petrenko doesn’t understand what age and sex labor have to do with human trafficking.
You crack me up, trying to misconstrue things, sweetie. I see you have a fixation with logic, but the concept I was trying to present to you is pretty simple, no deep logic involved. Do I need to repeat it for you?
There was also an image of hers in this thread (thankfully was removed) of a topless little girl blindfolded on a bed with a hand over her mouth and another of a little girl with a flogger in a mask but, that is totally innocent too, right Alexander?? Not everything is so black and white.
Alexander Petrenko You don't have to take my word for it. I don't save that garbage and I certainly would not re share. Someone on this thread had posted one of the actual pics here a couple days ago and it was rightfully removed. You can however, confirm others have as well online. It is mentioned a few times in the comments section of the Petapixel article online and on FB. I was a part of Megs personal FB group, and saw the images there (which is why I removed myself), so they are really hers. But again, you are free to do your own research
Oh, its also mentioned again here in part 2 of this article https://www.jodieotte.com/business-of-photography/exploitation-lies-phot...
Also, if your a part of the LLF group on FB, it's been talked about there too.
Here's a few more
Parents need to be reported to CPS!!!
There is a much larger problem here and it is huge in my opinion. Meg Bitten has thousands of followers - thousands. She has lots of child models whose parents were and are completely on board with her using them as subjects in these photos. Is the problem perhaps larger than just the photographer? What does this say about our world? After all Bitten can not exist as a photographer without her consumers and it looks like they are flocking. None of these parents are being forced to offer their children for use in her images. What is that saying?
I mentioned the parental involvement in the sense that these youngsters cannot sign a model release, it hast to be signed by a parent or guardian. I consider this complicity in the exploitation of minors. My guess is that these parents are hoping that their youngsters are "discovered" and will reap the benefits of their new found income.
She's nothing but a bottom of the barrel 1 trick pony and snake oil salesman with blind cult of followers that are just as disgusting as her. I'm glad this is hitting critical mass.
Like you have a damn clue about who Meg these images. All your doing is making yourself look foolish.
*you're
Gross. Children cannot consent. Period. No adult has the right to put them at risk.
At risk of what ?
The permanence of the internet. Facial recognition. Ridicule. Bullying. Normalizing ideas and situations for which children are not yet equipped to process in healthy ways.
You have to know that, when a girl tries Mom's makeup, it doesn't mean she wants anal sex. She's just messing around. I think you over-interpret the meaning and the impact of these pictures for the girls themselves. As for the consequences, do you think of everything that could go wrong every time you cross a street ? Live a little…
I think you're confusing experimentation in an age appropriate and safe setting to posting images on the internet where you surrender control of the child's privacy to the worst person who owns a computer.
"You have to know that, when a girl tries Mom's makeup, it doesn't mean she wants anal sex."
Holy crap! That's quite a leap from makeup to anal sex. Seriously? Do you conflate everything to this degree? Makeup doesn't mean anal sex? WTF? Do you not see all the grey areas in between all of that?
Risk of their images being traded on the dark web by pedophiles, which Meg acknowledges and finds funny?
There is no pedophilia where no child is touched. If some guys want to fantasize or masturbate, they don't need pictures, they just need a window. Say pedophiles trade Meg's pictures, what is the harm done to the children ? I don't see any. Jessica Alba doesn't get raped anytime someone fantasizes about her…
You are aware that child pornography does not have to involve "touching" or as you classify it, pedophilia.
To say "what is the harm done to the children" then makes the entire issue of child pornography one that is only defined as actual physical contact in the image. Perhaps simple is how you see things, but many of us don't.
The greater issue is how these images were created and why. Yes, the girls may have been consented by their parents and only see it as a "dress up" photo session. But these are not photojournalism images, that are depicting reality as it may exist for some girls, and for you to downplay the sexual suggestiveness only shows a disregard for how the sexualization of young girls is never harmful if "no child is touched."
The world is not as simple as your views.
These photos do not come close to any definition of what pornography is outside of an Amish community.
My apologies to the Amish.
Did I say they were porn?
Do Amish use computers? Or the interwebz?
You mention exactly what this image portrays and details...all in one image. I would say it's too much, but isn't it usually these uncomfortable topics that spark conversation about the truths that exist and are ignored...is children behaving outrageously on social media, such as "Lil Tay", the "Catch me outside girl," etc...Rap, bad mouthing, drugs, drinking, money. I think the image calls out exactly what's happening today with the speed at which social media is growing, and in which doing outrageous things propels them into this spotlight and popularity scale. She must have known this image would spark debate, as someone who is well placed to do something artistic, and quickly spread it through her following.
It's uncomfortable, but these are things that should be discussed by the adults, parents, family of our youth that have way too much liberty and freedom on the web and are bombarded by these images in popular teen culture.
Children have no idea what is good for them. Brooke Shields sued her mom for the photos she allowed them to take. Get a grip. If you, as a man (if you really are) would be ran out of town for these pictures.
Shields sued the photographer. Her mother was still her agent at the time and Shields wanted more money. She received $450 for the photos taken when she was 10. She was getting $10,000+ /d when she sued.
She lost because the photographer had a signed contract.
Everyone see's something different. These images are from New York in the 70's where Meg grew up. They depict her childhood and some of these other photographers in the group. most of these were taken during the production of a workshop. These models are children of Megs friends and other photographers and their parents were present along with the workshop attendees which happen to include a police officer which has stated their was no wrong doing or sexual intent and nothing that would harm the children.
She would have under 8 in the 70's (born in 72) and regardless of WHO the children are or WHO was in attendance, does not make exploiting them ok. Making them pose as prostitutes or drug addicts is wrong on many levels.
So this opinion makes it's it ok to attack someone because you don't like it. Force your ideals on the artist cause it doesn't fit what you expect to see. They didn't fit what I expected to see either, but instead of the stupid non-sense I started trying to see if I could figure out the story she was telling. You don't know how many times I've seen photographers attacked in groups just for showing a kids shoulder of all things.
Was the police officer taking the class or was he or she like the people who are on movie sets when children are working? I guess a cop is probably better than a priest...