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.
No evidence supporting your claim, so I'm going to stick with a jealous nobody, also too scared to post under your real name. Have a great day, sweetheart. ;)
I like how you keep calling me a "jealous nobody." really highlights what I've previously stated. You have a wonderful day, hon. <3
oh, and if you don't think consumers, or what you've called "jealous nobodies", don't vote with their dollars, just wait until all this horrific nonsense crashes both yours and Meg's sales numbers. There comes a point when you can no longer spin trash, darling.
Not worried, AT ALL. ;)
what are people jealous of? Her camera? Her ability to take photos? I don't get it.
Lisa, I am shocked to see how cruel of a person you are. I've always loved and admired your work, but after seeing how you talk to people I'll be unfollowing everything. And I know...I'm a nobody, so you could care less. It's just sad. Maybe you should take a time out and do a little soul searching.
I've always liked your images but had no idea how ugly you are; not for your point of view on this subject, which I disagree with, but your attitude toward people who disagree with you. I would think you'd appreciate their concern for children even if you don't see these kinds of photos as problematic. And all the chest pounding? Not a good look. Really sad to see. :-(
Yes, because no one else is being ugly here. /sarcasm It's a rabid internet mob - and if the few of us speaking out against it are 'ugly' in your eyes, I'll take it. I don't like seeing my good friend crucified by a bunch of angry keyboard warriors, the majority of whom are too fucking chickenshit to even post using their real names. It's disgusting.
Speaking out for, or against, anything is okay. It's just, if you think your position (any position) is right, it would be far better to discuss it reasonably. Otherwise you risk harming your position and entrenching opposition to it. I do see your point about using fake names but people have reasons for the things they do even if you don't know or agree with it. :-/
Yep, I'm totally using a fake name... you know why? Because I'm scared. You and Meg are mean and vicious. I don't want you finding me or my business page.....you'd just sick your minions on me. Using the excuse that others are being mean doesn't justify you jumping on board. Like the old saying goes "If your friends jump off a bridge, will you?' I get you are trying to stick up for Meg (only God knows why), but you're showing some true, and nasty, colors doing it. Have you sat back and even TRIED to understand why people are so upset about these images? There are reasons. Valid reasons. You don't have to agree, but constantly calling people "nobody" "useless"etc. just shows what a closed minded bully you are. I mean, come one...you sound like an angry middle school child. Why not discuss like an adult? Or are you not capable of that? Meg is getting what she deserves....you can't be a nasty b*tch forever and never have it come back to bite you!! KARMA!
If you'd go back and read my original response on this article, you'd see the reasons (valid, level headed reasons) that I support her and am appalled at the mob like mentality going on here. I'm glad you find us so 'scary' that you cannot back up your words using your real name. Amusing.
Haha. You're such a horrible twat Lisa. Crawl out of your own arse.
😘
How does this make you feel Lisa?
It makes me wonder wtf you are doing perusing a pedophile site, honestly...as far as Meg's photos turning up there - I know she has people who will file DMCA's and get them removed. This crap, unfortunately, happens to many of us.
I was not perusing a pedophile site. This is what was on a photographers page today and this is what her followers need to see and stop calling it some sort of fancy art. The images have a sexual theme that's why they end up there. And they are young girls 10 - 11. How will they feel in years to come that pedophiles have been using their images. But Lisa you are Meg fan so you will never see anything wrong with what she does. You both unfortunately are very cruel people and I have seen you treat people the same way Meg does. Both of you have very bad names in the photography world and it will get worse after this.
Look - I've had images removed from that SAME SITE. So have MANY MANY photographer friends. You are looking for a shock value by posting that, and you aren't going to get it. Unfortunately those types of people exist and will steal all sorts of images of children - NOT JUST MEG'S. I'm sure Meg will do what needs to be done to have her images removed, just as the rest of us have had to do.
So that makes her images okay then she can just remove them after they have been used. You see no harm in the actual images remember these girls are 10 -11 and there are pedophile sites dedicated to her work? Why do you think that is? And yes I did put the site up to shock people so they would stop calling this photography work ART! She has photographed these young girls in a sexual way but you will continue to defend Meg no matter what.
That is correct, I see NO HARM IN THE ACTUAL IMAGES. If you see them in a sexual way, perhaps it's you who needs your head checked?
Wow! Let everyone here note that Lisa Holloway sees no harm in these images. Funny though because Meg even titled some of those images in a sexual way because I was on her page when they were first put up and some of the men on her site loved them and commented with sexual comments and she said NOTHING!! They are removed now of course so people wont see. All you see are pretty young girls. Why did she remove then if there was nothing wrong with them. Her choice - FB didn't tell her too remove them. If she believed it was her Art they still would be up.
Who cares. Get a life. Go outside or something. lol
I like many people here care Lisa. We care only about the kids. You and Meg treat people the same way. You have both lost credibility in the photography world by your words and your actions. People will not forget this. And I know you will say to me WHO CARES.
Good for you for using a fake name! These two women are cruel so I dont blame you for protecting yourself. I just showed Lisa Holloway this. Not much of a reaction of course happens to all of us apparently.
Lisa, it sure is disappointing to see how you really are. You know? I've sensed it for a while, but now here it is for all to see. I notice that you edited some of your comments, but there are screenshots. :) Of all the professionals here (you ARE a professional, aren't you?) how many others have called peers in this industry "chicken shit", "jealous nobody" and (my favorite) "tasteless whore"?? All because we don't agree with you. If all of your clients could see how you REALLY behave, would you REALLY be "laughing all the way to the bank"? I know one thing for sure. I won't be giving you a dime. Oh, and my "nobody" name is MELISSA GIBSON. And you don't scare me one teeny bit.
Screenshots anyone?
I have a personal favorite
DAMN
" If all of your clients could see how you REALLY behave, would you REALLY be "laughing all the way to the bank"?" Maybe they should. I sure wish someone would have warned me.
If having a bunch of followers makes you act like this, then I never hope to get any. As I stated in its own comment prior, for people who work with children, are into the whole "express yourself" stuff, and teach, your attitude towards others is nothing short of being a bully.
I applaud Jack for shinning a light on these unacceptable images. Per American federal law, I believe these images are in violation . Placing children like dolls in sexual adult situations is disturbing. The line has been crossed. Hopefully Meg will think twice before glorifying child prostitution, under age tobacco use and the promotion of Marijuana amongst youth. #WTFMEG
No, actually, the author is violating federal copyright law. Plain and simple. And I've had an image removed from the article already, so there's that.
I’m not sure what article you’re mistaking this one for, but no images have been removed. As both a photographer and writer, I’m well versed in how copyright works and trust me, nothing in this article has broken any of the rules of Fstoppers. Hence it wouldn’t be live.
From reading the comments I think she got a photo removed in the comments.. either that or the person who posted it removed it once she asked him to remove it. Who knows.
Grasping at straws ... so there's that :)
Federal Copyright Law allows for criticism, news, etc. There is no way the author using an image in an ARTICLE violates copyright unless they edited it or are selling it for monetary gain.
Think again, Emilee.
So some kids with seizure disorders are very familiar with cannibas and supporting legalization means their parents may not have to jump through hoops to get it ? I shoot in daycares on a regular basis and daisy duke style shorts are not uncommon?so parents send kids to daycare with short shorts on picture day ! Some people don’t grow up with picket fences in suberbia , some grow up too fast ! There’s a photo of Brooke Shields with a cigarette in her hand , no biggy . One of those two girls almost embracing is featured on the show orange is the new black . That photo was taken in a workshop witnessed by many people including a police officer that happens to be a photographer and the girls moms. They are friends so they laughed and giggled and were very comfortable. The sad thing is that I am sure the backlash may not be very fun for them .You the photographers that should SEE the art are turning them into victims, not Ms. Bitton. Why does our industry have to hate on each other ? I wonder do sculpters and painters bash each other in a public forum ? I love Megs work and I love her attitude. Too many people play way too nice , North America is one of the few places the customer is always right . Yup if she doesn’t like your attitude you are gone . You are gone if you bash other photographers, gone if you publicly bash LGBQ community, she promotes equality at every turn . But it’s her group she doesn’t have to play nice . Let’s face it when you can make enough $$$ you don’t need to kiss ass anymore why should you tolerate people you wouldn’t sit at a table with in a restaurant? So yup she pisses people off . But she has photographed each of these children for years one has a Mother that’s a photographer close to her . I have seen her be very assertive when her followers have attempted to contact these girls directly rather than their agency. She has watched them grow and after watching many workshops featuring these kids it’s obvious they know each other well and I do not doubt for a moment that if she had predicted this bs she would take it back now just for the girls sake . I think the photography industry needs to take a step back . I am so sick of seeing the bashing whether it’s about cell phone photographers, beginners doing weddings , bad photographers charging money , not charging enough for good work . I can’t think of any other group of “ professionals “ so darn critical. So scroll past it if you don’t like it ? Don’t buy her shit , leave her group , that is your choice ! But bashing her , threatening her and posting these photos all over is just bringing more attention to the children featured, kinda defeats the purpose here ? It’s late I am babbling, this has gone too far .
I'm sorry, what? You guys are literally INSANE. INSAAAAANE. I'm embarrassed for fstoppers.
Um, I am sorry but Cannabis oil for seizures with low THC, is one thing, and has been legalized in many states for children, and some adults, it just can't be grown in a lot of states, it has to be shipped to them. There is a HUGE difference in Cannabis oil for medical reasons, and a 9 year old wearing a shirt with a suggestion to legalize pot on it. I have a feeling they are not speaking of CBD oil. To have underage kids with a flask in their hands, money rolled up like they are snorting coke, the look of them standing around with a pimp or a score. I'm sorry, you can call it what you want, but its not a real good example to other kids. In this world we should be trying to set good examples for these kids growing up. They grow up way to fast as it is. Why hurry them along just so she can relive her past. Is she saying at 9 she was smoking weed, and running around in panties, and sleeping with grown men, because maybe that is where the problem lies. You can say all day long that there was a cop there but guess what, I have dated one too many cops in my life, and that is not saying much at all for a cop to be there. I am sure he got his kicks out of it!! Just because a cop was present, does not in any way make the fact that underage children were posing in ways that make them look like they are doing inappropriate things. I have a son and a daughter, and there is no way in Hell I would have let them pose like that, acting or not. You plant seeds in kids, and seeds grow. You might plant an idea that sweet little girl never even thought about. I will fight with all I have, to hang on to my kids innocence for as long as I can. I have really enjoyed Meg's work in the past, but this was a little too much. You can't go from pretty baby dolls to street walkers without expecting a kneejerk reaction, and when you start deleting opinions that are not exactly for you, then it really makes you look even worse. Just man up. If you really stand by it, then stand in the fire.
Very well said Jennifer! I am 100% with you there!
This is the reason people are angry. This is where her images go there are pedophile sites dedicated to her images because they are sexual. Are you ok with that?
Glad to see actual industry leaders taking a stand against this. Those defending are just comical and sad. The fan girls/guys are so in love with her that they refuse to see what the rest of the world sees. The images are overly sexual for children, especially with the insane problem we have right now the child sex-trafficking.
I don't know why people like MEAN girls so much. I really hope that she can find a way to turn this around and change her ways. Maybe become an advocate against crimes against children.
.....
People don't care about children (what they think, experience, discover). They just want children to be the image of the purity and innocence they long lost. Even if their 12 years old is getting wet when some cute actor is on the screen. There were times when you weren't a child anymore after 14 and could marry. They pushed the majority age further and further as the centuries passed, as if old farts wanted to control things longer. What if kids are just the same than before, but we expect them to be stupid and naive longer ?
...
I think you guys, in the US, are afraid of everything and let your religious morality overlap too much on public life. In Europe, we have had to deal with several different religions from the beginning, so at some point, tired of murdering each other every once in a while for beliefs, we decided religions were a private matter and please keep that under your shirt, at home and in the private places you praise.
But on the matter of children depiction, it's all the same now : as soon as children are on the picture, it's pedophilia already. As if we were overcompensating for all these years when children were molested with no one moving a finger.
"I think you guys, in the US, are afraid of everything and let your religious morality overlap too much on public life. In Europe, we have had to deal with several different religions from the beginning, so at some point, tired of murdering each other every once in a while for beliefs, we decided religions were a private matter and please keep that under your shirt, at home and in the private places you praise."
Perhaps the stupidest thing I'll ready all day.
Look at the sheer number of religious holidays in, say, Germany in which people are generally given the day off of work. Far more than in the States. In Germany there are a total of 12 national religious holidays. In France I believe there are 6. In the US, we have 2.
Look at the abortion laws in most of Europe. They are far more strict than in the US. Most of them are capped at 12 weeks. Those stricter abortion laws are a result of religious pressure.
Aversion against the photos that this article is about has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with the message of seemingly sexualizing children. I'm not religious in the slightest, yet I understand the concept that people are upset with. It's far more complicated than "religion."
There's a reason in the Western world why 11 year old children are not able to enter into a binding contract, marry, go to a bar, drive a car, live without guardians, etc. Children don't have the life experiences to make far reaching decisions. It's pretty freaking simple.
Generally, reasonable people frown on 11 year old girls being presented in an overtly sexualized manner in photographs. If people are not able to see that many of these photographs are overtly sexual, then they are either willfully ignorant or are just stupid. That being said, I'm not jumping on the notion that those who may not have a problem with them are simply pedophiles. That, too, is just stupid. But it still doesn't change the fact that they are overtly sexual.
We can all argue on the merits of such photos and have differing opinions, but to just lump the US into some "religious" pigeon hole is intellectually vapid and banal.
Back at you. Religious holidays have nothing to do with actual religion, since they are just family holidays unless you are religious. We have more holidays than the US in general, period. Maybe that's why we have an higher productivity…
The point stands : religions are to remain private and have little impact on laws. Whereas your american christian morality is everywhere, even in social medias user agreements. What I see here is narrow morality from people living in the Midwest and South, afraid of boobs, sex and God, trying hard to see abuse and porn everywhere.
"There's a reason in the Western world why 11 year old children are not able to enter into a binding contract, marry, go to a bar, drive a car, live without guardians, etc."
We had 14 years-old soldiers during the First World War, who lied about their age and identity to be allowed to fight. I don't think it's that pretty freaking simple. There is no magic things that happens into your head on the verge of your 18 or 21.
The point being is that the "religion" card you pulled out is a non sequitur.
Are you saying that 11 year old children should be able to sign binding contracts, marry, go to a bar, and drive a car?
yes, but why not go out and take photos of this real phenomena instead of posing kids who are not at all in that predicament (the opposite in fact)?
don't pose ten year olds to convey a message you want to make about childhood. If you want to address issues of sexuality in young adults or teens go out and take photos of real life instances. To pose a child in those ways to make YOUR point, or convey your message is about you, not the particular child. Meg is posing those children to look like that, she didn't catch them on the street that way - but you better believe that is out there in real life. It totally is. I do believe she is making a statement but she is using children as her medium and they are not able to really give consent nor are they naturally occurring photos, they are 100% about herself......