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.
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...
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.
The urinal is not an entity whose consent is ethically required. I understand, I think, the artictic "point" and have no quarrel with the point. I am uncomfortable about whether a guardian can "consent" to the sexualization of these underage models on their behalf, or if they can consent to it even for themselves.
And I don't think this is another case of the "dad in the shower with the sick girl." These are overtly and clearly as erotic as the nude photography that I have done.
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!