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.
I’ve done child photography but not like this. It’s not a great idea for obvious reasons when the meaning is overlooked. I don’t know the backstory or what her intentions were, only what I perceive. I’m sure the parent understood at the time. I love art, arts had its share of drama using children even in the 1400’s to depict art and stories. This is too much for me, for most people but I can see what it’s creating below the surface, some people still have trouble with that. I can name some famous controversial photographers but people will hate when they’re already in hate mode.
So we should sexually exploit children to show sexual exploitation of children? Makes perfect sense....Two wrongs don't make Meg Bitton more right. She is wrong to do this to these children. Can you image the school kids what they are going to call and taunt these girls the REST of their school ives? If it's such her vision why isn't her own daughter have photos like this? How about a grand child? YOu are sick if you think this is OK.
Yollie, I've seen the lies you've been spreading. I seen the stuff you made up on how and why these photo's were taken. People should be disgusted with you. Your one sick demented or truly misguided person. You may be one of the ones that get arrested over what you have claimed. I don't think facebook was too happy with it either. You were one of the may ones starting these lies.
Hahaha arrested? What kind of odd police state world do you live in where someone gets arrested for nothing? You have no concept of the law.
Charles Marshall you must be one of Meg's minions. I have told absolutely NO lies, I don't need to, the photos speak for themselves. I'm wondering if you are part of her PR brigade. So bring on whatever you wish.
What are you even talking about? Stop stealing intellectual property, Yolllie Web.
You completely overlooked how I said “I would say this is too much”. And you’re also overlooking the point of the image in my point of view... by the way, it’s my point of view in regards to what she was aiming at, and it was a discussion such as this. It’s uncomfortable but everything in this one image portrays the fact that it exists on social media, it exists in the minds of our kids...it’s just too incomfortable that people stay quiet, shun it, and pretend it doesn’t exist. How dare anyone talk about the valid points in this woman’s creation.....wow, photography and the provoked context it creates is overlooked.
"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,"
This is not happening today, it always have. The diference is before, medias were edited by an elit, and now they are just as the society is, with no filter. You seeing it more than before doesn't make the social reality it represents worse.
Yes, it's happening so why take innocent children and dress them up sexually to show that it's happening. Why glamorize it with soft focus and perfect lighting? Show it for what it is don't take innocent children and put them IN those situation. Are you paid by MB?
" Why glamorize it with soft focus and perfect lighting?" I wish you would use that thought process and take aim at the teen vogues, the social media outlets, disney, britney spears, christina aguileras lol I Mean... I'm just saying. I also don't know why you're making the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is paid by her ? I don't even know if you're just trolling at this point. I've already agreed with many of your points, and created a discussion about the underlying issues that exist... I'm not going to war with someone who is clearly one sided and on a war path against the photographer. I'll make sure to include
"This is not a paid ad" on all my replies. Geez it appears someone has noticed you have a thing against her on a personal level.
Thanks for the response Aurélien. I guess you are right. Just like you said though, things have always existed but with the rise of apps like Instagram and Snapchat, it’s loud and in shock value being spread. Why not tackle the issue in the same way by provoking everyone to talk about it. We have to make a safe assumption the kid in the photo doesn’t actually smoke, drink, and skate in public like that... I doubt that’s what this image says, but perhaps all this crosses most kids minds as they are constantly reminded in pop culture. I think it’s great everyone is giving opinions, I just don’t think the artist should be attacked for bringing the subject as meaning to everyone’s faces. Like you said, it already exists, it’s not new, it’s uncomfortable, but what will people do about the reality of what’s going on. I was always told growing up, that “it starts at home.” My dad would have beat my sister if her era had any of what exists now, music, clothing... you just have to read a magazine or watch music videos to see all this crap.
Check out the RAP battle going on between Eminem and MGK!! Now that is totally cray cray.....
Garbage.
We can see very high level of pragmatism here. She is obviously exploiting these girls. so called `art` crap is just for cover up story. what the heck is that lesbian erotic poses of 9-10 years old girls ? you can`t use sexual symbolism on under age children. no need explanation for that, it`s just wrong.
because it means you are abusing innocence and purity for pragmatism. if you okay with it, i can`t say anything else
The association between youth and purity is your own fantasy. I have friends who masturbated at 12, making up sexual stories in their head to get aroused. No, they were not abused nor sick. They were human and turned out just fine.
Thats not everyones experience. You're overgeneralizing. It really doesn't matter what you think. What matters is the law.
The association between youth and purity is fantasy for those who break it. We all know a FEW, who masturbated at age 12, it still doesn’t mean they are mature enough nevertheless to be exposed. And it still doesn’t mean that no child is innocent, only because there are some that got a hormone shot before they turned 14.
`Let the children alone with their fantasies !!!`
You and some others like you trying to twist this subject into something related to self sexual discovery or sex related stuff. of course they will fantasize about something to arouse
Nobody say this is wrong or they are sick.
about purity matter, I am talking about children not adolescents.
the problem is someone exploit them for their own benefit and show them as an art.
you are trying to pull this conversation somewhere else, but that`s not gonna work
Gosh, Alexander! I hope you don’t have children!!
Totally different, just remember the photos shown are NOT the worst ones. Nudity is different than sex...Sexualizing children for a PHOTO is wrong!
Deleted: I just don't care.
Kids - child actors - play roles in movies all of the time. How is this any different at all? Are you all going after people casting children in what you deem 'inappropriate' roles in movies and television? There's nothing more disgusting than a rabid, mindless internet mob.
Trust me, it's the brainwashed minions that that are mindless, if you can't see it you have your head planted firmly in the sand.
Ignore LJ... she’s one of Meg’s bff4l 😂
And you're a useless nobody. Your point?
Ahhh yes, the good ol "I'm industry famous, and if you're not, you're useless!" commentary. Amazing how big your head is, when no one outside of the industry gives half a shit who you are.
The good news is that I'm able to provide a nice lifestyle for my family working mostly from home. So despite what you say, it matters not to me whether anyone outside the industry knows me or not. It's completely irrelevant. Can you say the same? I doubt it. lol
That I'm able to provide a nice lifestyle while working from home? Why yes, actually! I make quite a nice income, and enjoy a great life. Thank you for your concern! My kids are actually playing in the room next to me right now while I check my email, and we're about to go for a walk to the park because I've been at this for like 10 minutes, and, unlike you, I have better things to do. Seems as though you've been coming back for several hours now, eh? What an amazing life you must have, then!!! Feel free to respond and get the last word, since I know that will make you feel even more superior, but I won't be back to read it. Cheers!
I wonder how long it took you to type up all that drivel you've been anonymously spouting here? Sounds like you're doing quite well! lmao
Actually there IS something more disgusting and that would be Meg's followers...
Given that there is no emjoy, or other form of written or symbolic information there that would provide the sexual context that you attribute, I cannot help but wonder what such attribution says about you.
Really?!? Trying to gaslight Alvin Toro doesn't make the photo's comment okay. Wrong is wrong and sick is sick.
I'm not "gaslighting" anybody, merely curious as to the lens of his worldview. But you can apply any label you wish.
Again, there is no contextual framework around that comment; the interpretation is on you.
an EMOJI!? Are you kidding?!?!? You need an emoji to qualify that this is a predatory comment?!
But you're calling everyone else morons? Okay, then. Seriously, you're clearly one of the predators she caters to. Maybe if you were ballsy enough to use your real name, we could send the police to your house as well.
He did used to use his own name. I see these people come and go all the time. At some point (this thread in his case) they show themselves and can't handle the pushback.
Just so you know, Sam, I've been an investigator for the last decade, and I interview people in civil and criminal matters every day. The simple fact is that I operate on funny notions like evidence, even if that evidence is circumstantial or inferrential. And yes, things like "context" matter.
In any case, I really have no time whatsoever for a community where people create alts to accuse others of being paedophiles.
You can all fuck off.
I don't recall accusing anyone of being a pedophile and my comment, you replied to, was benign. I stated the facts in a neutral way. He started commenting on this thread using a name he's used for months, espoused views I've never heard him state before, became disgusted with the comments of those disagreeing with him and closed his account. I've seen that happen many times. All neutral facts.
What kind of investigator are you, anyway?
whatever helps you sleep better at night.
She is one sick puppy and these aren't even the worse ones. I saw one where she had two little girls not over 8, one has her legs spread with her feet on the wall beside the other child's head with her bottom tilted up. The one looks very uncomfortable turning her head to the side. She knows that's not right. And when did it become OK to sexually exploit children to show sexual exploitation of children? This of it like this, tell a child (pull your panties up into your crack and spin your pretty little dress around so that we can see your bum and take a picture for it for the internet, because Ms. Meg has a "vision"....yeah that's an actual picture I have/saw of hers. She is sick and she thinks nothing can touch her.
What are you even talking about? This is completely unintelligible.
What are you not understanding Sarah?