It’s amazing that you got this far into the conversation and, despite my repeated mention of a daughter, you think my baby had testicles. And I never suggested she was anything but cisgendered, so I’m really not sure how you missed that. But based on the rest of your silly question, I have a few guesses.
Only someone who knows nothing about external female anatomy thinks “nards” could possibly be a gender neutral term. But do tell me what plural parts of her genitalia that would show up in a typical naked baby photo would count as “nards.”
Believe it or not, I don’t have a single photo of my daughter’s ovaries or fallopian tubes. They’re way too far up inside her for a camera to capture.
They’re way too far up inside her for a camera to capture.
Unless the cameras are designed for that. Usually found in hospitals and on plumbers. And the pictures that come out of those are not identifiable as who they’re from.
I definitely agree with you that “nards” is in no way gender neutral as a term. I wonder how “gender neutral” @[email protected] would think it to refer to an infant boy as having a “hoo-haa”, “vag” or a “pus”?
Reading through this entire comment chain was interesting, because it seems everyone has missed each others points
FlyingSquid I believe means like, parents having a photo album (ie, a literal traditional physical one my mum had of me) which contains like “photo of first bath” or “photo of new t shirt but no bottoms cause running around as toddlers do”, completely innocent shit mixed in with general baby photos. And pulling that album out is used to embarrass the adult son/daughter with funny baby pictures and “haha look at baby you naked”, completely innocent humour. It might be less common these days, generationally people don’t do it as much.
nomus(?), killingtime(?) etc etc the others replying seem to be taking the comic literally as if the photos are solely of genitalia and thats the frame/centre point of the image instead of it just a kid doing something normal and happens to be nude.
I am sure flyingsquid isn’t going around with photos of their kids privates to show to people / send it to people etc with the specific intention of showing private areas but instead like my previous example, the kid is in the bath. Or running around without bottoms or a nappy cause it was changing time. Who knows. But its a far cry from the extreme end which everyone else seems to be assuming
i literally didn’t claim that, scroll up to one of my previous comments.
That is what you said.
What you would consider it is irrelevant to what people who have experienced it have considered it.
violation of privacy is often considered to be an extreme form of trauma for most.
That’s why it’s private.
Removed by mod
It’s amazing that you got this far into the conversation and, despite my repeated mention of a daughter, you think my baby had testicles. And I never suggested she was anything but cisgendered, so I’m really not sure how you missed that. But based on the rest of your silly question, I have a few guesses.
It’s a gender neutral term.
Only someone who knows nothing about external female anatomy thinks “nards” could possibly be a gender neutral term. But do tell me what plural parts of her genitalia that would show up in a typical naked baby photo would count as “nards.”
Believe it or not, I don’t have a single photo of my daughter’s ovaries or fallopian tubes. They’re way too far up inside her for a camera to capture.
Unless the cameras are designed for that. Usually found in hospitals and on plumbers. And the pictures that come out of those are not identifiable as who they’re from.
I definitely agree with you that “nards” is in no way gender neutral as a term. I wonder how “gender neutral” @[email protected] would think it to refer to an infant boy as having a “hoo-haa”, “vag” or a “pus”?
Well that’s reassuring, it’s only her external genitalia you’re advocating tooth and nail for showing to her future partner.
Glad we cleared that up.
I thought I was showing her pictures to everyone and taking child porn? Make up your mind.
Reading through this entire comment chain was interesting, because it seems everyone has missed each others points
FlyingSquid I believe means like, parents having a photo album (ie, a literal traditional physical one my mum had of me) which contains like “photo of first bath” or “photo of new t shirt but no bottoms cause running around as toddlers do”, completely innocent shit mixed in with general baby photos. And pulling that album out is used to embarrass the adult son/daughter with funny baby pictures and “haha look at baby you naked”, completely innocent humour. It might be less common these days, generationally people don’t do it as much.
nomus(?), killingtime(?) etc etc the others replying seem to be taking the comic literally as if the photos are solely of genitalia and thats the frame/centre point of the image instead of it just a kid doing something normal and happens to be nude.
I am sure flyingsquid isn’t going around with photos of their kids privates to show to people / send it to people etc with the specific intention of showing private areas but instead like my previous example, the kid is in the bath. Or running around without bottoms or a nappy cause it was changing time. Who knows. But its a far cry from the extreme end which everyone else seems to be assuming