Phil submitted a photo to appear on his brand new, personalized, credit card. First off, I didn’t know people, other than those in actual commercials, bothered to personalize their credit cards with a special image. I mean, seriously, who cares? Apparently, my husband. He sent in a photo, a favorite of his, and suggested I do the same. "But yours," he said, "has to be of Lucas, since mine was a photo of Abigail."
"Really? You honestly took the time to fill out the paperwork and crop the image, just so?" He didn’t need to answer. This is the guy who, against the better judgment of corporate marketing executives, always sends in the mail-in rebate. Always. He gets the stubs, scans barcodes, cuts receipt numbers, and always has things postmarked just in time.
"The photo was denied as offensive, inappropriate, obscene, indecent–"
"They think you’re a pedophile. Awesome."
"Can you believe that?"
"Well, which photo did you send?"
"The one of Abigail with the rubber duck."
"Well, come on, Ped-O-Phil, you had to have known better. Remember the fit people threw when I wrote about foie gras? Hello! Personally, I’ve found rubber duckies offensive ever since Ernie declared to the world that his rubber ducky was "the one." No wonder Bert turned evil.
COMMENTS:
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
That's just heart breaking that you would place a photo of your child under the word Pedophile. Really disturbing and hurtful. I'm increasingly finding blogs difficult to stomach. You profit from your brand of humor, but shouldn't there be some kind of line you don't cross, no matter what? You've just brought together sweet innocence and the nasty and very real world of sex crimes against children. There is absolutely NO humor to be found in the cheapness of what you've done, Stephanie.
That's hilarious! I wonder why it didn't occur to him that it wasn't the best picture… I mean it is cute and all, but as a credit card it's not just him that would be looking at it.
That is TOO funny, and she is TOO cute.
Oh Dee what has this world done to you? Stephanie recounts a story of her adorable daughter in the least provocative photo(oh, those eyes!)and how her innocent husband(name "Phil') tried to make a keepsake of her and he got thrust into the reality of today's world. The issue here isn't with Stephanie, blogs or Canon for making cameras. The issue is how jaded we've become. The title with "Phil" is clever.
OMG…you're funny, Stephanie!
Doesn't it just make you wonder how someone could find this beautiful photograph offensive or obscene?
It only makes me realize WHERE peoples minds ARE.
actually, Dee, she placed the picture of her daughter under the word "pedophil" big difference.
Wow, I'm with you, I didn't know there were people who actually had those cards. Of course, now I'm pondering what I would get if I ever got a card…
I'm with you, I didn't realize that real people actually had those cards. Of course, now I'm pondering what photo I would choose if I got a card…
(Sorry for the double comment if it exists. The computer is eating my words.)
you can talk all you wanna, but you know ernie would NEVER have turned to rubber ducky if bert weren't off spending time with those damned pigeons all the time. ernie was a faithful companion, and bert, with his avian fetish, just did NOT deserve him. we can only hope that rubber ducky treats ernie better than that.
It is a little odd but I guess Phil is still managing to surprise you so it keeps things interesting. There are so many beautiful photos of the children so why choose a naked one of the little girl – weird.
Sad how people are so easily offended by things that used to be natural. Watch out Phil, maybe you'll be chased by burning torches if you dare hug your daughter in public!
I even remember bathing with my dad when I was little, there was nothing sexual about it (he read the paper, I "groomed" the hair on his calves) but nowadays I think people are becoming afraid to do this as they may be branded a pedo.
Americans are even more easily offended than the rest of the western world it seems. Foie gras for instance, or if you see how they've cut up and censured foreign cartoons due to "inappropriate content" (oh no, a lesbian! evil!) while keeping extreme Christian propaganda and violence on air. Weird standards. Commenter #1 is a perfect example of "over-offended" btw.
I can only suggest to Dee that she stops reading blogs if she finds them offensive. However, it's not a good idea to tell someone how to censor their brand of humour.
It either works for you or it doesn't.
Dee, if you are so offended, why take the time to read? Seriously.
seriously dee, come off it– its funny and cute and innocent– by now you should know the intent of the humor on this page.
Dang…so I guess that Playgirl picture I sent in is coming back.
It is a beautiful picture, but just not the correct one for a credit card. Men just don't think about this stuff. All he saw was a picture of his little sweet miss.
I can just imagine the comments and looks he would have gotten in they actually did put the picture on the card though.
Most of us here realize that Stephanie can sometimes be just another blog shock jock and so we take that into consideration when reading stuff like this. That being said, some things just go too far and this is one of them. The sad, heartbreaking fact is that there are people (although how you can call sick $#@^$'s like that people is beyond me) that troll the internet looking for pictures like that of young children. You may not want to acknowledge it, you may not want to think about it, but your pretended ignorance does not make it go away, does not mean it doesn't exist. Dee said it, and she's right – there is no humor when it comes to pedophelia, no matter how you dress up the word.
When I first saw that picture posted a few days ago, I thought it was in poor judgement for her to post a picture like that on a widely viewed blog. I'm not a prude, I can see the picture for what it is – a beautiful, and innocent, picture of her adorable daugher. But there are others out there that like pictures like that for way more sinister reasons. It's those select few that would make me leave that picture for the family photo album.
I admit to giggling while reading the post. That would have been something my Dad would have done; or my kids' Dad. There was nothing wrong with Phil wanting to put his little princess on his credit card. Unfortunately the world around him would not have seen it in the same light. lol (I think that's why I found this humorous. I have a morbid sense of humor. Forgive me Phil.) You would have caused a stir more than a few times with that photo. I can see more than a few who would react just as Dee did, when Phil handed his card over for payments. That is until he ran into someone with motives that were less than innocent. At that point, I think Phil would either remove that adorable photo, or kick some guy's ass for saying the wrong thing. As a parent and daughter, I know what having the adoration of Dad is. As do my children. I could see my own Dad putting a photo of all of us in the bathtub together on one. (Not now! When we were babies.)lol But then, I'm afraid my Dad would have enjoyed kicking a few asses in those days.
But before we're too hard on Dee, readers, remember that there are thousands of children moles*ed daily. You don't know her background, or that of her children's (if she has any) My point is, this may very well be a topic that hits close to home in some way. And the scars left behind, from what I understand, never completely heal.
I do think it's a sweet idea to put Abigail on his credit card. But maybe Phil, you should have Stephanie pick the photo. ;-) (I'm teasing)
3T
How great is that? I would be absolutely thrilled to have my photo rejected – especially if it was a completely harmless one like that of Abigail. I'd consider it a badge of honor that the first thing you see in the photo is an adorable little girl – not a creepy pedophile tendency.
It is sad that it used to be commonplace to see photos like that and no one thought anything of it, but now it's deemed as inappropriate. That is a sweet photo and anyone that sexualizes it needs to have their head examined.
I've had a photo on my CC since college. At the time I just did it for the hell of it. Little did I know how important it really is to do that. My wallet got stolen not that long ago and out of my four major CC's, the ONLY one this man couldn't use was my Citibank MC with my photo. He spent 7k in three hours on the other three with clearly a WOMAN'S name on them.
So, the picture thing is no joke or just for fun.
I agree with Maddy. Kids photos, or certain kids photos should be kept in the family photo album.
Some mom bloggers don't know the limit of privacy and their children's privacy should be in a whole different level, it should be a right on it's own, no matter how beautiful, artistic or innocent the photo is, or how funny an anecdote. I don't think when they grow up they will necessarily appreciate being cached in the huge memory of internet.
Blogs are the supreme exercise of freedom of speech, for posters and commenters alike. At the end of the day, their your kids, your thoughts and your stories to share. The only one you have to answer to is them and yourself…and maybe the credit card companies.
It's not what Stephanie and Phil think about the picture, it's what others can, would, and probably will do with this picture that would make me not want to have it posted on the internet, much less on a credit card that will be touched by grubby, disrespectful. with who- knows-what thoughts running through their minds as they run it through the credit card machine. I a strong advocate of first amendment rights and think they should have allowed the printing of the card, but I don't think it was a wise idea to submit it, or post a naked picture of any kid past the age of infanthood on the internet. Maybe even then – in my paper today there was a story that involved a 1 year old getting molested at her christening party. You can't be too careful. Anyone googling pedophile/obscene/indecent will be able to easily see this picture now.
Bert's become a beatnik, yes? Even looks like a c-ring he wears 'round his neck.
Hey Dee — what's in YOUR wallet? :)
Oh, Dee. You poor thing. Do you have a therapist?
You stay indoors now, and you shut 'dem winders tight, and lock the doors. You keep readin' these nasty, dirty old blogs and making sure people like Stephanie know they're the reason the world is going to pot.
Good going, Dee!
A photo of any human without a shirt is not obscene. This photo is incredibly beautiful. It doesn't show anything not viewed on the beach, park, any place little toddlers are. Thank you Stephanie for posting this issue.
This ain't Britney Spears parading her hoo hoo! Lighten up and enjoy the innocence of kids.
It would be nice if you had something complimentary to say about Phil once in a while. Any time his name comes up it's invariably something derogatory. I do wonder how you would feel if he ran a blog and filled it with snarky things about you. I don't think you'd take it as well as Phil must. You should know by now that even the most even-tempered and patient people get sick at a certain point of being the butt of jokes, and of being the one at fault in any argument.
His desire to have a photo of his child on something as silly as a credit card ought to be in the "aww how sweet" category – not the "what a moron" category.
Phil sounds like such a great guy. Keep him! Also, funny how no one chimed in at how awful the photo was when you first posted it. The pen is mightier than the photo?
Maddy, you can not control what people think. I am sure that Stephanie and Phil will give both their kids talks about appropriate touching and stranger danger and adults asking them to keep secrets from their parents and all that shit. There is nothing wrong with thinking the naked body is beautiful. There is nothing wrong with Phil choosing that picture to go on his credit card and nothing wrong with Stephanie talking about it. Even if a pervert were to jerk off to Abigail's picture, while that is gross and disgusting, it will not actually do any harm to Abigail. The likelihood of her ever knowing if it happens is slim to none, yes?
There are people who'll get off on seeing little kids in bathing suits, but that doesn't mean the twins shouldn't be taken to the pool, does it?
"Hey Dee — what's in YOUR wallet? :)"
GOOD ONE, MEGAN!!!!!
Dee–praying for you and your issues. Maybe you SHOULD stop reading these blogs if they upset you so much. I wouldn't choose to put pictures of my kids (if I had any) on the internet and certainly not on my credit card, but if that's what Stephanie & Phil want to do, that's their choice. What do they care what I think?
I AM, however, seriously considering putting MY pic on my credit cards after reading what "T" said about her wallet theft.
I guess I am alone here- but I think it is totally bizarre that of all of the photos, Phil would choose a naked one of his daughter to put on a CREDIT CARD.
Oh, Jesus H. Christ. The sycophantry of some of the responses here is gross. Stephanie brought up the pedofilia aspect, so a commenter is not necessarily sick in the head for commenting on that. Personally, I agree with Lee's last sentence about what a sicko and a search engine can find.
Also, coconutdiaries, blogs are not exactly "the supreme exercise of first amendment rights". The law unfortunately has not completely caught up with the pace of the internet, but that doesn't mean you still have an unfettered right to post child pornography on the internet. I am not at all saying that the photo of their daughter is a child pornography. Of course not. What I am saying is that there is a reason not all tittering with (at times syncophantic) laughter at this post. Some people are just uncomfortable with exposure that could be misappropriated.
The fear people have of paedophilia is greater than the risk itself. I would never minimise the offences that are committed; I work with children who have experience sexual abuse, but lets lose the obsession? This photograph heralds all the innocence of childhood and more people are viewing this image in that context than any other. It is more of a shame that Stephanie knew the response it would receive and reflects Phil's own innocence that he didn't anticipate this.
I'm with Dee. Sorry, everyone else! "1-800-PED-OPHIL"? It's not Phil, or me, or anyone reading and commenting who is sexualizing this photo. The title of the entry speaks VOLUMES.
Let's face it – most of Stephanie's readers would appaud anything she says or does. I am not sure that all of the posts are true, sometimes I think it is just a topic to twist in the wind.
Rather than think that the few folks who disapprove – and rather thinking that these people are somehow the twisted ones, maybe if you could crawl out of your Barney's bag and maybe get real with the rest of the world…..then you might see the error of posting that innocents photo on the web or on a credit card.
Ooops, got to go. My veal cutlet with morel and glacee of pear frittatta just arrived – I have to finish that before my boysenberry mousse melts in the noon sun……
I was warned for having a video of my 6 month old nephew splashing in the tub on my online album and the file was removed. I felt a little embarrassed and a lot annoyed/disgusted that this is what we've come to.
Green – I think you need to take a reading comprehension class. "There is nothing wrong with thinking the naked body is beautiful. There is nothing wrong with Phil choosing that picture to go on his credit card and nothing wrong with Stephanie talking about it." Nowhere in my post did I say there was something wrong with the picture itself, nor did I say they should take it down, that they shouldn't have posted it in the first place, etc, etc. I don't find anything wrong with that picture at all. It is a beautiful picture – beautifully taken of her beautiful daughter. Innocent, adorable, and with a rubber ducky to boot! I stated that I thought it was poor judgement to post the photo in such a public forum. It may not hurt Abigail to have some wierdo lusting after her, but I for one, as a parent, wouldn't want anyone lusting after my toddler, whether she's aware of it or not. Since posting or not posting pictures of my child is the one thing I truly do have control over I would make sure not to provide them with the materials to do. It is Stephanie's daughter, Stephanie's pictures, and Stephanie's blog. She can do as she wishes. I, personally, would have not posted that picture and I gave an opinion that supports that.
I'm going to beat some people to the punch and state that I do NOT think this makes Stephanie a bad parent. I simply disagree with her judgement in posting the photo and think the post heading was in poor taste.
1- So cute!
2- That someone would think you made any of this up is unbelievable.
3- That someone would write you wrote it for shock value is unbelievable
4- Some people feel more comfortable hiding everything and everyone from possible perils. They live their lives behind locked doors, alarmed cars, edited thoughts expressed, feelings hidden. These are the same people that when confronted by a differing opinion on how they live their lives bring up the first amendment.
5- So damn cute!
6- All of the above
7- What do you have in your wallet…priceless
Sad, this whole thing…as i sit here with the sweetest photo of my darling incredible chunker of a daughter, 6 months old at the time. i look at it, as it sits on my desk, and at my home, and it NEVER fails to make me smile. yet, she is not wearing a shirt. SO….what does that mean to others? I find it so very sad to have to ask that q. YET, pedophilia persists, and I'd rather be safe than sorry. There are some VERY sick motherfuckers out there…sick and demented. And while I'm not a very religious person, I truly feel that there is a special place reserved in hell for those who prey upon children.
As for the pros and cons of this post, all I'd like to say is lay off on Dee, because if you are going to pick on her, then some of y'all need to be thrashed about a bit for similar offenses.
Lastly….I'm about half-way through Moose. I'm vey hot and cold about it thus far…but looking forward to finishing…and I have to say, that aunt of yours that beat you…ugh, i wanted to step into the book and beat her ass.
I personally found nothing wrong or offensive with this entry. I found it funny, my husband and I have a similar banter we volley back and forth. What is wrong and offensive is how people react to an innocent photo!
"You can`t be too careful."
I`m with you, lee. Too many crazy people out there.
Imagine if they were both in the tub! Scandalous!
And puff the magic dragon is a song about drugs. Will the horrow and inappropriateness never end???!!!
I personally would not want a photo of one of my grandkids on the internet without the assurance (if there is such a thing) that it could not be viewed by strangers….but then, it also creeps me out to think that anyone can view a myspace page, etc. Mine would be set to private.
On the other hand, Stephanie chooses to make her life much more public than I, which is her prerogative.
Puff? Drugs? Whaaaat? I guess I should have figured. Who wrote it, anyway?
Hahhhhaaa!! He's forever branded as a pedophile with your credit card company now! They'll be watching his purchases like a hawk!
Right on, Carol. Stephanie could write something witty (in her mind) about drowning a bag of puppies and her readers would find a way to applaud that, and come down on anyone who said anything negative about it.
Crawl out of your Barneys' bag, indeed.
I, for one, find the whole, "I'm a writer and I can post what I want and say what I want," thing downright irritating. It's bad enough when you seem to bash your husband and air your marriage's dirty laundry every week. But when it comes to your children… I think it's downright disgusting. It's a sick, sick world we live in and our children should be protected at all costs. As should their privacy. I would never, ever post pictures of my children online. I don't need strangers' validation or comments to prove to me how cute & wonderful they are. Pictures of the children are for family & friends only. But I guess that's the difference between some of you and me. I wouldn't sacrifice my family or children for the sake of my giant ego.
SK has some fans. Obviously. And most likely, there's at least one sicko fan out there. Now they know what her children look like. Who's to say someone won't figure out where she lives (not hard to do at all) and one day show up at their preschool or some such? I just don't see that it's worth it to add to that possibility.
Jodie's comment made me laugh out loud. Leti's made me giggle too.
Im sorry but the blog was short, sweet and funny as hell.
I have a feeling Phil is a good sport and probably laughed at his own oblivion. That picture is adorable. I love how Lucas has darker eyes and Abigail has those blue gems. Too cute.