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.
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?
ALL OF IT.
Don’t worry, double standards will save her.
Here's a question for those who are offended by this (as I am): By what standard do you object to it? In other words, what's the objective standard of acceptable behavior that allows you to declare this inappropriate? I ask this because I believe that western culture has rejected the values upon which it was built. This (and much worse) are exactly what we can expect to see from those who consider themselves free from the "oppressive" attitudes of the past. It's gonna get ugly!
Why does there have to be an "objective standard?" How about thinking in terms of, "would I allow my daughter to dress up like a half dressed hooker, cigarette in hand, for anyone that logs onto this "photographer's" site to see? I never had a daughter, but rest assured, she wouldn't be a model for this sort of work.
Hey look, ANOTHER pedophile!
Renown child photographer who only shoots wide open? I suppose its an artistic style but its just lame and overused.
The last photo...what art was she talking about...ROFL...I don’t see any but lens performance.
If only we could have had this conversation on her page...but she bans anyone who disagrees. Glad to finally have some neutral ground to talk now :)
I agree so heavily with the line here "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."
Exactly. I don’t see any art because the styling is dated and storytelling is poor. I would have said the same thing had she use more mature models.
No but because it offers nothing else. It’s the type of clueless storytelling and styling I am critizing at. The girls are not sexy, they look like sexy-wanna-be at best in the photos. There’s no emotion to the photos because the girls were “told” to pose to in certain ways, ways that just don’t make sense for their age. The absence of heart and soul just made these photos look cheap, forced and fake.
Felix you are exactly right. I couldn't agree with you more.
This is just beyond disturbing, those are LITTLE GIRLS for crissakes!!!! What is wrong with people?!?
If you search up Meg's name in Google images you can find this one in wallpaper format with 360 downloads. It's sick.
That's my DAUGHTER. She was tieing her SKATE. Take this image down, asshole.
Skates look tied already.
Thanks, Terry. You internet warrior. Get a life.
Internet warrior? And you were just passing by.
I've seen you on several of these sites. Haha
You allowed this to happen, Sarah.
Allowed what to happen, Amy? Allowed you PSYCHOS to sexualize these children? YOU GUYS ARE. It's so blatantly obvious and rotten to the core.
Why would she edit and post such an image?
Sarah Meg Bittons images end up here.
There is a petition circulating to ban her Facebook and Instagram accounts. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and I am not some overzealous prude. This is sick. The images and her use of them to stir up drama to boost sales is child exploitation, period. https://tinyurl.com/banmegbitton
It doesn't matter how old the author of the article is, for people who so love to boast freedom of expression, and believing in yourself, and all that crap, Meg and the people who are behind her really love to tell people what they think is wrong.
OH AND BTW - I know a few people who have gotten full refunds for their purchases over this, so feel free to apply if you purchased stuff :)
Nick :-D :-D
These are sort of creepy and disturbing but some will say that is the point to make the viewer feel uncomfortable. It reminds me a little of the art/smut debate about David Hamiltons' pre teen models who were almost to the age of consent...