Mum shares why we need to ditch the practice of painting little bottoms for cute photo shoots.
Call me a prude and a party pooper (pun totally intended), but I don’t find the new trend of festively painting babies’ bottoms for holidays even a teeny bit cute.
I suppose my comfort meter alarms over-the-top at the mere thought of anyone restraining (they absolutely are holding them against their will) a baby so they can festively decorate their privates with paint.
It’s not cute.
Submitting your rating…
Babies are not chalk boards or blank canvases, for God’s sake.
We just don’t paint our offspring for our own selfish entertainment.
Again. It’s not cute.
Worse yet is posting these humiliating photos on the Internet for everyone and their brother to copy, paste and pin to Pinterest where the copy-paste-post cycle will repeat for all of eternity.
Soon enough, Pumpkin Butt will grow into a child with emotions who’s capable of independent thought and will more than likely resent the hell out of the artist.
Way to go, Mum.
Don’t insult my intelligence by comparing hand and foot prints. It’s not even remotely close to butt prints. We’re comparing apples and oranges, in which case this one happens to be a pumpkin.
My four kids (ages 13 – 20) remain horrified to this day when they view the changing table photos.
And I do mean HORRIFIED.
I can’t even begin to imagine how they’d feel had I painted pumpkins or Easter eggs on their butts and posted them on the Internet.
I know I’m going to get a lot of hate mail on this one. C’est la vie. I’m advocating for the babies, and I’m not budging.
It also invites us to open an entirely NEW conversation that goes something like this: when explaining GOOD TOUCH – BAD TOUCH to your four year old, where does mommy doodling on baby sister’s bottom or making canvas butt prints fall on the spectrum of what’s acceptable?
Where do we draw the line?
She does make a pretty good point. Do you think it is creepy or cute?
Share your comments below