"Btw, the adults were naked?"

There was a photo of everyone peeing on the fire. If that is written correctly, then that would include the adults as well. To pee on an object, would require a degree of nakedness. To take a photo of that, along with children peeing (the daughter too) would raise red flags.

And no one was extradited.

If you look for the opinions of early-childhood experts, you will find the range--those who say that children past the age of 2 should not see their parents naked, and those who say that what's appropriate depends on the family, the context, the wishes of the children, and common sense. Can we agree to disagree on this issue? Please?

The more important point here is that the clerk in the drugstore had no way of knowing what the agreed-upon standards (if there were any) might be among the people in the photos, or even what the relationships were among the adults and childen in the photos, and so he acted to protect the children from (possibly further) harm. A surprisingly (to me) large number of people posting here seem to think there was something wrong with that.

Not everything that's done "for the children" is bullshit. Ranting against same-sex marriage on the basis of a "for the children" rationale: bullshit. Asking a photo clerk to use his or her judgment when there's a possibility that defenseless young children are in danger: not bullshit.

"People,

there is such a thing called child molestation. It does exist. People do take photos of naked children for sexual reasons, and sometimes they do get them developed in drugstores.

Also, if you take photos of your children, and have them naked, running around with liquor bottles, and have naked adults in the photos as well... you might very well expect some controversy.

It was probably innocent on his part. He should have used a digital camera. He was questioned and the case was dropped. Period."

Really? I didn't know there was a thing call child molestation. Thanks for informing me. Oh, I see you allow that it was "probably" innocent on his part. You know though, you can't be too sure so we should probably extradite him just in case. You can never be too careful when it comes to protecting ther children. Btw, the adults were naked?

People,

there is such a thing called child molestation. It does exist. People do take photos of naked children for sexual reasons, and sometimes they do get them developed in drugstores.

Also, if you take photos of your children, and have them naked, running around with liquor bottles, and have naked adults in the photos as well... you might very well expect some controversy.

It was probably innocent on his part. He should have used a digital camera. He was questioned and the case was dropped. Period.

The current issue is this nonsense about the father "showing" his daughter his penis. That type of twisting of what happened is certainly part and parcel of the "For The Children" hysteria and actually illustrates what the author was talking about in his article (re: the Eckerd's clerk and subsequent drama).

My other line was just a play on an old phrase so get over it.

oh, please, that is Such a distortion of what I said.

Someone, please read any child-rearing book. Most of them say either child should not see their opposite-sex parent nude after age 2-3.

That is not a claim that seeing a penis will ruin any girl's life. It's simply saying that kids should not have the opportunity to see their parent's sexual organs and confuse thier sense of sexuality. It has nothing to do with a fear of penises (ha, you guys REALLY overestimate their power if you think we're EVER scared or jealous of them).

PUt away the magnifying glass and get over yourself dude.

I said it's wrong for a father to show his daughter his penis and I stand by it. -- cosmic mojo

Look, mojo, you're hurting the cause here with your "fear the penis" meme. There's a lot a space for what's natural and normal regarding family nudity and sexual development and a lot of room for telling Jody he did quite a few dumb things and he ought to STFU about his own mistakes.

Go hold your own dick, or some other adult's if you don't have one. It sure beats typing here every few minutes. Try it and see.

Penises are bad evil viscous things and no girl should EVER see one. Thanks to this poor little girls evil penis waving father she is scarred for life.

Don’t you know that seeing a penis at such a young age will make her crave penises FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE!!!!

She is sure to be pregnant by the time she is 9 years old.

If there were no penises there would be no war, hunger, homelessness, or people.

"They'd rather see 100 innocent men go to jail, rather than one child abuser go free."

What a distortion of the issue!

Most child development specialists say after age 2 or 3, when a child is aware of sexual and genetalia differences, they should not see their opposite-sex parent nude. I think it's because it creates conflict between healthy sexual feelings and parental feelings, one shouldn't mix the two.

People seem to think respecting privacy and immature understanding of sexuality and nudity is equal to puritanism. And that the only way to be comfortable with nudity and sexuality is to have no boundaries. That is totally false. Teaching your kids boundaries is important.

And you have to ask what motivation is behind a man who wants to show his daughter his genetalia.

"As usual during the trip, we took several photos. Because I forgot my digital camera, I bought a disposable camera at a gas station on the way to the campground. I took pictures of the kids using sticks to beat on old bottles and cans and logs as musical instruments. I took a few of my youngest daughter, Eliza, then age 3, skinny-dipping in the lake, and my son, Noah, then age 8, swimming in the lake in his underwear, and another of Noah naked, hamming it up while using a long stick to hold his underwear over the fire to dry. Finally, I took a photo of everyone, as was our camping tradition, peeing on the ashes of the fire to put it out for the last time. We also let the kids take photos of their own."

How do you interpert that as a father showing his daughter his penis? It's not like he said let me show you my penis and whipped it out for the expressed purpose of showing her. You're putting a rather nefarious and sexualized spin on it. I think "seeing it.." is much more accurate.