Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?

[Medusa]

So I was cruising the internet for creepy pictures to post in people's profiles and came across this image:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3267/2827376480_1e159c354d.jpg

Needless to say, Im a little....A LOT....creeped out by this.

I started thinking about ALL of the images and ways that children are sexualized in the media, in pop music, and through toys and wanted a place to talk about it so we could all recognize it a little better.

My baby sis was 9 when she asked for her first Bratz doll. I was not amused by them. Any others?

I wonder why our society rages against pedophilia but so easily embraces the sexualization of children?

[T D]

Is it just me or does that appear to be a more "grown up" hand in the photo?? I find this very creepy personally. I can't even tell what this ad is for.

[Abigail Crabby]

This type of media campaign totally creeps me out.

Why do they feed pedophiles these kind of images?

[Medusa]

:|:|:|



http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/image/pole_dancer_doll_full.jpg

[Sachita]

Totally big time fucked up. The fact that they used a child and the word sexy should be illegal. Someone should file a law suit. If someone hasnt already lets do it.

[kassykit]

all i can say to that is .... wow O_O

[PinkieLee]

I was flipping through the channels the other night, and saw a part of Toddlers & Tiaras (the reality show about baby pagents ~ think JonBenet Ramsey). It's hard to believe that they have swimsuit events, dress these LITTLE girls up like 20 year old models, and teach them to be flirty with the winking, blowing kisses & shaking their butts. I can't even imagine the self esteem & body image issues these kids are gonna deal with later on down the line. Not to mention, giving pedophiles a "legal" way to have access to these children.

A little while back, there was a lot of debate about a group of 7 year old girls at a dance competition, dancing to Beyonce's "Single Ladies", and even got attention from the ladies on the View.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HAZDw1yzXUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HAZDw1yzXUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Medusa]

I was flipping through the channels the other night, and saw a part of Toddlers & Tiaras (the reality show about baby pagents ~ think JonBenet Ramsey). It's hard to believe that they have swimsuit events, dress these LITTLE girls up like 20 year old models, and teach them to be flirty with the winking, blowing kisses & shaking their butts. I can't even imagine the self esteem & body image issues these kids are gonna deal with later on down the line. Not to mention, giving pedophiles a "legal" way to have access to these children.

A little while back, there was a lot of debate about a group of 7 year old girls at a dance competition, dancing to Beyonce's "Single Ladies", and even got attention from the ladies on the View.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HAZDw1yzXUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HAZDw1yzXUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


GIRL, we had MEGA debates about this at my job!!!!!

[Medusa]

O.M.G.

:|


http://thelaughingstork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/CreepyDiaperAd.jpg

[JustJo]

Ugh...this is so disturbing on so many levels.

That Baby Soft ad really does appear to be photoshopped to have a child's face and an adult hand...a pole dancing doll...a sexualized image of a child so young as to be wearing a pull-up...just so wrong. And that video...just gives me chills.

I believe that, as a society, we really need to allow children to be innocent and children as long as possible...and we need to protect that. The most disturbing thing to me is the parents who find this entertaining or amusing or (worst of all) something to be proud of.

[Medusa]

And this?? This "you must compete with your young dauther because purity and virginal skin is WAY more desireable than an adult woman" thing?

Oh. HELL. No.

http://pzrservices.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451ccbc69e201156f1ff8a4970c-400wi

[The_Lady_Snow]

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/10/107379/19_2008/houseofdereon.preview.jpg

[The_Lady_Snow]

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/sexualizinggirls.jpg

[The_Lady_Snow]

Here is the sad thing..

These ads are all over magazines, and parents don't blink twice which is disturbing cause yanno your 11 year old has to have that pair of Diesel Jeans

Really??

Gross

http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/dieseljeans_kidscollection2.jpg

[Medusa]

You KNOW this has got to come from one of those "you cant start em' too early" camps...



http://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/baby-born-wedding.jpg

[The_Lady_Snow]

:|

http://uncivilsociety.org/disneychild.jpg

[The_Lady_Snow]

http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/cal35.jpg

[PinkieLee]

Why in the world, would a BABY need high heels?! I just don't get it!!

http://www.areavoices.com/rrvwt/images/heelarious_high_heels_for_b.jpg

[JustJo]

Why in the world, would a BABY need high heels?! I just don't get it!!



So that a few years later her parents can do this to her....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4OuEfH0ftZM/SZ8N75pWJXI/AAAAAAAAEFI/dEZ2LBCjbJY/s400/pre+teen+beauty+pageant.jpg

...and it will already feel "normal"
Ugh.

[The_Lady_Snow]

http://thegirlrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/miley.jpg

[Medusa]

I saw something on tv one time about child pageants and how some of those children get spray-tanned, hair extensions, eyelash extensions, and even capped teeth!

[The_Lady_Snow]

0hRr431UP3c

[The_Lady_Snow]

aDIyygRr0d8

[SuperFemme]

http://www.historiann.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/babymarlboro.jpg

[SuperFemme]

http://journal.starwidget.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/sexytoddlerclothes.jpg

[SuperFemme]

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/1793667_f260.jpg

[SuperFemme]

http://cdn1.crackle.com/profiles/channels/236/ChannelArtTileSmall.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzarcbEmxZ1qznpi1o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId =0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1276277803&Signature=AJ%2ByXk%2BZSfJc%2F3v1h%2FqHWdLLNzg%3D

[suebee]

I was flipping through the channels the other night, and saw a part of Toddlers & Tiaras (the reality show about baby pagents ~ think JonBenet Ramsey). It's hard to believe that they have swimsuit events, dress these LITTLE girls up like 20 year old models, and teach them to be flirty with the winking, blowing kisses & shaking their butts. I can't even imagine the self esteem & body image issues these kids are gonna deal with later on down the line. Not to mention, giving pedophiles a "legal" way to have access to these children.

A little while back, there was a lot of debate about a group of 7 year old girls at a dance competition, dancing to Beyonce's "Single Ladies", and even got attention from the ladies on the View.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HAZDw1yzXUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HAZDw1yzXUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

.....and their parents LET THEM go on stage like this. :|

Sorry folks, this thread is too creepy for me. Think I'll just go and watch a zombie or vampire movie. At least then I know what's real and what's not.

[JustJo]

.....and their parents LET THEM go on stage like this. :|



Not only let them, but cheered and clapped.... I truly don't understand.

[PinkieLee]

http://cdn1.crackle.com/profiles/channels/236/ChannelArtTileSmall.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzarcbEmxZ1qznpi1o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId =0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1276277803&Signature=AJ%2ByXk%2BZSfJc%2F3v1h%2FqHWdLLNzg%3D

And we can't forget Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby....

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BeF7Me5MXqU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BeF7Me5MXqU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Medusa]

Does anyone remember that movie "Birth" with Nicole Kidman where the little boy was claiming to be her long-dead husband?

CREEPY.

[Words]

These images are creepy.

Could we please though not let this develop into a my image is creepier than your image contest? (We all know that images like these exist. I just wonder about the benefit - potential harm? - of reproducing them here).

Words (personal triggers acknowledged)

[Medusa]

These images are creepy.

Could we please though not let this develop into a my image is creepier than your image contest? (We all know that images like these exist. I just wonder about the benefit - potential harm? - of reproducing them here).

Words (personal triggers acknowledged)


Not trying to squick anyone out, Words, but I get what you are saying.

I am ok with linking to the page where the images reside (these are all hotlinked to someone else's webspace) so that people will have to click through a link. My intent was so that we could see what different types of media manipulation looks like (for instance, the baby heels? I would have never been able to picture that!)

[Lady Pamela]

This thread actually made me a lil nausious. But it is a much needed one to get the word out.


I had a friend's daughter pass a few years ago.
My grandaughter's best friend and play mate.
My grandaughter wasn't there this day but usually was.

Desiny Nortan

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/PINKBEETLE/destinynorton.jpg

She wasn't exploited but due to the exposer they read about in the guys diary....This type of thing played into it.

Here is her story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_Norton_disappearance

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PrlnCuJjaS0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PrlnCuJjaS0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I believe we should start a huge petition against this and start spreading it everywhere. Get ACLU invovled as well.

Though this case was directly related to her, I believe the exposer promtes to all children. In my opinion.


JonBenet Ramsey

http://karisable.com/jon_benet.jpg

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

These are just 2 example out of many..I agree...something needs to be done.

[SuperFemme]

Isn't it odd that for the most part the sexual media sticks with our girl children?

[Medusa]

Isn't it odd that for the most part the sexual media sticks with our girl children?


SO true, and do you think that the toys that revolve around motherhood and being a wife and (EEEEKKKKK!!!) a *breastfeeding vest with a doll that sucks* for a 5-year-old to wear is a form of over-sexualization.

I mean, girls receive images and messages just about from the time they are born that they must be a mother, a wife, etc. etc.

Ai. Yi. YI.

[Selenay]

Isn't it odd that for the most part the sexual media sticks with our girl children?


Not at all surprising! We live in a culture obsessed with preserving youth (think about how many ads you see for a youth regenerating serum/cream or a wrinkle prevention/fixing formula every day.

Children are encouraged to grow up fast, and to seek the benefits that come with age--but they should stay twenty one forever.


Women are socially indoctrinated to be good girls--innocent and pure--while being bad girls--sexually deviant, mischievous, naughty.


It's no wonder that children are being placed as almost the archetypal woman.

[SuperFemme]

From early on girls are encouraged to be in supportive roles. Hence the toy vacuums, kitchens, make up, princess outfits, breast feeding dolls and pregnant Barbies.

I keep waiting for there to be a Child Support Ken or a chefs set for toddler boys.

Instead boys are given trucks, tools, and narcissistic superheroes. They are frowned upon when attempting to engage in what is considered "girl" play.

Which of course takes us to adulthood, where it is perfectly normal for Hugh Hefner the Crypt Keeper to shack up with three twenty somethings...but the media is rabid about Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore getting married and it spawns a series of "Cougar" themed media.

Just blech.

SO.

What the fuck do you say to a Mom who drags a tot to these pageants? I want to slap them. Each and every one of them.

[SuperFemme]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-482192/Fury-12-year-old-model-fronts-world-fashion-show.html

[Dylan]

From early on girls are encouraged to be in supportive roles. Hence the toy vacuums, kitchens, make up, princess outfits, breast feeding dolls and pregnant Barbies.

I keep waiting for there to be a Child Support Ken or a chefs set for toddler boys.

Instead boys are given trucks, tools, and narcissistic superheroes. They are frowned upon when attempting to engage in what is considered "girl" play.

Which of course takes us to adulthood, where it is perfectly normal for Hugh Hefner the Crypt Keeper to shack up with three twenty somethings...but the media is rabid about Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore getting married and it spawns a series of "Cougar" themed media.

Just blech.

SO.

What the fuck do you say to a Mom who drags a tot to these pageants? I want to slap them. Each and every one of them.

Why would a boy get a 'chef's set' to play with, but a girl just gets a stove and pots and pans?

I'm not picking on you, but this shit pisses me off. When boys DO get a cooking toy...he's a 'chef'...but when a girl gets a cooking set, she's 'just a housewife'?


Again, It Just Pisses Me Off,
Dylan...so off topic, I'm sure, and no...I haven't caught up. I'm committing my own pet peeve as we speak

[SuperFemme]

Why would a boy get a 'chef's set' to play with, but a girl just gets a stove and pots and pans?

I'm not picking on you, but this shit pisses me off. When boys DO get a cooking toy...he's a 'chef'...but when a girl gets a cooking set, she's 'just a housewife'?


Again, It Just Pisses Me Off,
Dylan...so off topic, I'm sure, and no...I haven't caught up. I'm committing my own pet peeve as we speak

Oh. I guess you missed my sarcasm. I thought it was glaring. :candle:

[Dylan]

Oh. I guess you missed my sarcasm. I thought it was glaring. :candle:

I picked up a little of it.

But even in the sarcasm, it would have to ring true...you know what I'm saying? Because it would *have* to be called a 'chef's set'. I mean, being that we have little kitchen sets already...which are naturally for girls.

And a sewing machine would have to be called a 'tailor's set'.

Gah....I'm so off topic, and I apologize for the derail.

Personally, I want to see some boys playing with my little ponies and doing their fucking hair, and gluing star stickers to their ponies' asses.

Again, I apologize for the derail...children's toys (and children's toy commercials) PISS me OFF.


Especially When The Parents Turn Around A Say Something Really Stupid Like, "MY Kid Doesn't Buy Into That Gendered Stuff (as the kid sits there and plays with their pink or blue toy),
Dylan

Yeah, and where ARE little boys dressed in bathing suits and evening wear competitions with faces full of make up?

[Lady Pamela]

As a survior of childhood sexual abuse from a serial pedophile I have to say that from what I know media images do not create pedophiles. They certainly may incite them but they do not entice grown men to abuse children. The psychological make up of pedophiles is complicated. To me that kind of smacks of blaming the media.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with a breastfeeding doll for a child. Breastfeeding is not sexual. Breasts are not the exclusive domain of sexual objectification. A boy could play with that doll just as much as a girl especially if Mom is breastfeeding. Children often want to emulate Mom and if she is nursing a young child there is not a darn thing wrong with a child playing in that way. Being a Mom and a wife is not the only thing girls can do but it is not a bad thing either.

Sorry if I am crabby. I am with Words. This thread is triggering me big time. I don't want to crab puff about it so I'll just try to keep myself away.



I agree with you in the fact that it doesn't create pedifiles..But...I do believe it fuels them .

I as well was assaulted as a child and I believe the more things out there to fule these personalities...The more it is brought to front and acted upon.

In my opinion only.

I also realize that bringing it to front to fight it...may have a duel result at first...But in the end if things work out right...It may slow the result of abuse even a lil.

[SuperFemme]

I picked up a little of it.

But even in the sarcasm, it would have to ring true...you know what I'm saying? Because it would *have* to be called a 'chef's set'. I mean, being that we have little kitchen sets already...which are naturally for girls.

My sarcasm WAS in the title of Chefs Set and how ridiculous that is.

And a sewing machine would have to be called a 'tailor's set'.

Yikes. That is equally upsetting. What should I have called my son's cleaning set? A Janitorial Set?

Gah....I'm so off topic, and I apologize for the derail.

Personally, I want to see some boys playing with my little ponies and doing their fucking hair, and gluing star stickers to their ponies' asses.

Again, I apologize for the derail...children's toys (and children's toy commercials) PISS me OFF.


Especially When The Parents Turn Around A Say Something Really Stupid Like, "MY Kid Doesn't Buy Into That Gendered Stuff (as the kid sits there and plays with their pink or blue toy),
Dylan

Yeah, and where ARE little boys dressed in bathing suits and evening wear competitions with faces full of make up?

Dylan I don't think it IS too far off topic. The sexism and misogyny that perpetuates this crap is really the underbelly of the beast.

We're all spoon-fed this stuff from day one, unless we are super duper lucky to have been born to evolved peoples.

What do you think about the little girls that are six or seven dressed up like twenty year olds?

What do you think would make a mother put her kid in that position?

[The_Lady_Snow]

I picked up a little of it.

But even in the sarcasm, it would have to ring true...you know what I'm saying? Because it would *have* to be called a 'chef's set'. I mean, being that we have little kitchen sets already...which are naturally for girls.

And a sewing machine would have to be called a 'tailor's set'.

Gah....I'm so off topic, and I apologize for the derail.

Personally, I want to see some boys playing with my little ponies and doing their fucking hair, and gluing star stickers to their ponies' asses.

Again, I apologize for the derail...children's toys (and children's toy commercials) PISS me OFF.


Especially When The Parents Turn Around A Say Something Really Stupid Like, "MY Kid Doesn't Buy Into That Gendered Stuff (as the kid sits there and plays with their pink or blue toy),
Dylan

Yeah, and where ARE little boys dressed in bathing suits and evening wear competitions with faces full of make up?



http://www.glitznglittergraphics.com/NESPAGEANTS/images/06SweetAgeTinyBoyHector.jpg


I have to agree with all points made

[The_Lady_Snow]

These parents to me scream of...

I want to make a buck off my kid and be the popular mom cuz my kid is better than yours kinda parent...

http://www.glitznglittergraphics.com/NESPAGEANTS/images/06SweetBoyGrandRobby.jpg

[always2late]

As a survior of childhood sexual abuse from a serial pedophile I have to say that from what I know media images do not create pedophiles. They certainly may incite them but they do not entice grown men to abuse children. The psychological make up of pedophiles is complicated. To me that kind of smacks of blaming the media.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with a breastfeeding doll for a child. Breastfeeding is not sexual. Breasts are not the exclusive domain of sexual objectification. A boy could play with that doll just as much as a girl especially if Mom is breastfeeding. Children often want to emulate Mom and if she is nursing a young child there is not a darn thing wrong with a child playing in that way. Being a Mom and a wife is not the only thing girls can do but it is not a bad thing either.

Sorry if I am crabby. I am with Words. This thread is triggering me big time. I don't want to crab puff about it so I'll just try to keep myself away.

I am also a survivor of abuse, and while I agree that these images do not make pedophiles, this does not detract from the fact that sexualizing a child is beyond wrong. It is just disgusting.

I also find the breastfeeding doll very off. And, forgive me, but I don't understand the logic in the post. I agree that breasts are functional and not necessarily sexual, and yes, children want to emulate their parents...but that does not mean we LET them. It is OUR job as parents to set boundaries for our children...and this includes determining what is appropriate and/or inappropriate for a child. That is the point....there are adult behaviors, mannerisms, clothing, etc...that are not APPROPRIATE for a child! For example...my son would LOVE, I am sure, to try to drive the car. However, he is 10 with neither the judgement, size, or skill to drive...therefore, NO driving. Sorry if it seems like I am oversimplifying...but really, shouldn't it be that simple?

[Dylan]

I don't understand why breast feeding is seen as 'inappropriate'.

I mean, I agree with Juliesafemme. It's not a sexual thing...yet it is constantly sexualized...even to the point of being considered 'illegal' in some places.

So, why is it ok to have a doll that one gives a bottle to, yet breast feeding is seen as 'wrong'?

I don't get it.


Being Serious,
Dylan

[JustJo]

I don't understand why breast feeding is seen as 'inappropriate'.

I mean, I agree with Juliesafemme. It's not a sexual thing...yet it is constantly sexualized...even to the point of being considered 'illegal' in some places.

So, why is it ok to have a doll that one gives a bottle to, yet breast feeding is seen as 'wrong'?

I don't get it.


Being Serious,
Dylan

I think this has to do with the sexualization of women, period. If my only, or primary, value is sexual than anything I'm doing with my breasts must be sexual too.

I breastfed my son until he was 17 months old...and I couldn't even begin to tell you how much crap I put up with about it. I was always modest about it...that's just who I am...and my son was one of those babies who was fine to have a blanket or scarf covering completely while he nursed. I was told on more than one occasion that I should go nurse him in the bathroom...instead of the relatively private quiet spots I would find at the mall, in a restaurant or wherever I was. My reaction was always the same...."really? do you eat your lunch in the bathroom? I don't."

Women's bodies aren't always sexual...but in this culture that's still their primary value. Barf.

[Soon]

I am also a survivor of abuse, and while I agree that these images do not make pedophiles, this does not detract from the fact that sexualizing a child is beyond wrong. It is just disgusting.

I also find the breastfeeding doll very off. And, forgive me, but I don't understand the logic in the post. I agree that breasts are functional and not necessarily sexual, and yes, children want to emulate their parents...but that does not mean we LET them. It is OUR job as parents to set boundaries for our children...and this includes determining what is appropriate and/or inappropriate for a child. That is the point....there are adult behaviors, mannerisms, clothing, etc...that are not APPROPRIATE for a child! For example...my son would LOVE, I am sure, to try to drive the car. However, he is 10 with neither the judgement, size, or skill to drive...therefore, NO driving. Sorry if it seems like I am oversimplifying...but really, shouldn't it be that simple?



Sure driving a car and feeding an infant are adult behaviours, and that is why toy companies have developed products that let the child imaginatively participate in them.

A child can drive a pretend car and that is fine--the child wants to emulate the act of driving, so the parents buy a toy car/big wheels (whatever) for the child to scoot around in.

I'm with Dylan and Julie--why is a toy bottle a more appropriate device for the imaginary feeding of a baby?

I don't see this type of doll as contributing to the sexualization of children.

[SuperFemme]

i don't think breast feeding is sexual AT all.
In fact, I think we got around to that by route of ways girl children are taught to be good girls and housewives.
All the toys emulating that geared towards little girls IS sexist and misogynistic when coupled with the fact that not a lot of toys are geared towards girls being masculine and boys being feminine. I use feminine and masculine only in the strictest binary sense as perpetuated by MSM.
(so please don't give me a lesson on what is and isn't feminine or masculine, because trust me...i know).

I have watched my daughter be asked to leave a restaurant due to the fact she was breastfeeding in a corner booth, covered up. Needless to say, Mom was there and we not only stayed, we ate for free. Grrr.

[Medusa]

I don't understand why breast feeding is seen as 'inappropriate'.

I mean, I agree with Juliesafemme. It's not a sexual thing...yet it is constantly sexualized...even to the point of being considered 'illegal' in some places.

So, why is it ok to have a doll that one gives a bottle to, yet breast feeding is seen as 'wrong'?

I don't get it.


Being Serious,
Dylan


I actually have much less of a problem with the breast-feeding part than the "shove a young girl into a role as a Mother" part. I wouldnt mind it so much if there were dolls and such to encourage young boys to fantasize about what a good Father they would be.

But I do get that breastfeeding is sexualized. I will admit to being a little squicked by the flower petals on the vest that would cover the part where the breasts should be :|

[Dylan]

I actually have much less of a problem with the breast-feeding part than the "shove a young girl into a role as a Mother" part. I wouldnt mind it so much if there were dolls and such to encourage young boys to fantasize about what a good Father they would be.

But I do get that breastfeeding is sexualized. I will admit to being a little squicked by the flower petals on the vest that would cover the part where the breasts should be :|

Yeah, I agree..shoving girls into mothering, cleaning, cooking, secretarial, shopaholic, hair dresser, hooker, stripper, sexualized, etc roles grosses me out and pisses me off sooooooooo bad.

And I have to admit that I had a bit of a problem when you mentioned the breast feeding vest (and I'm trying to figure out why, because I know know know it's not a sexual thing...I'm still trying to figure out *why* my initial reaction is what it is...I mean, I don't know if I would buy my kid a breast feeding vest, and I don't know why or why not...maybe because it IS so sexualized. I just don't know...still trying to figure out what triggered the initial 'ew' reaction when I know logically it's not a sexual thing)

And yanno, even if you're the coolest, most enlightened parent in the world...your kids are still going to gravitate towards gendered toys, because their peers are playing with gendered toys, and no kid wants to be left out


Dylan

[Selenay]

I actually have much less of a problem with the breast-feeding part than the "shove a young girl into a role as a Mother" part. I wouldnt mind it so much if there were dolls and such to encourage young boys to fantasize about what a good Father they would be.

But I do get that breastfeeding is sexualized. I will admit to being a little squicked by the flower petals on the vest that would cover the part where the breasts should be :|

I'm sorry, I just had a flashback to my childhood...

Marlo Thomas is there...

And that guy from MASH...

z3GZby1kDXY

[SuperFemme]

I wouldn't buy the toy because it is yet another useless thing that the kid will break, bury under 100 other toys or ignore 10 minutes after you buy it. Kids don't need that stuff. Their imaginations are plenty! My daughter used to just put the dolly to her chest and say her baby was having "nursies".

I don't know why breastfeeding is gross to people. I know for sure it is but I don't know why. Is it because our culture so sanitized or is it just sexism and misogyny? Also I am curious if anyone thinks breastfeeding sexualizes the child who is nursing? I don't but I have heard people say that about boy children older than a year nursing.

I think what squicks *me* is not the fact that there is a breast feeding doll.
I think it is the fact that little girls don't have breasts yet, and everywhere they look there are breast-centric messages being thrown their way.
I just want them to relish the years they have being KIDS, and it feels like they are pushed to be older almost right out of the womb.

The really weird thing about people grossing out over breast feeding IS the fact that breasts are basically the passport to the universe according the the MSM. It is the norm for women to get implants and big boobies are everywhere. Strange to be so puritanical about the thing that actually de-sexualizes breasts.

[chefhottie25]

I was flipping through the channels the other night, and saw a part of Toddlers & Tiaras (the reality show about baby pagents ~ think JonBenet Ramsey). It's hard to believe that they have swimsuit events, dress these LITTLE girls up like 20 year old models, and teach them to be flirty with the winking, blowing kisses & shaking their butts. I can't even imagine the self esteem & body image issues these kids are gonna deal with later on down the line. Not to mention, giving pedophiles a "legal" way to have access to these children.

A little while back, there was a lot of debate about a group of 7 year old girls at a dance competition, dancing to Beyonce's "Single Ladies", and even got attention from the ladies on the View.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HAZDw1yzXUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HAZDw1yzXUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>



I have accidentally found this show too. I disturbed me to say the least. I couldn't believe that the girl's parent actually support and encourage their daughters to compete in these competitions.

[tuffboi29]

Now, whereas I dont agree, that, this type of media makes a pedephile, I DO strongly agree that the objectification of our daughters and our sons has got to stop.

As a mother of a seven-year old girl, and raising two boys (my ex-wife's children) I am alarmed at the clothing I see being sold in the stores.
My first example: Wal-mart. Have you noticed the clothes they have for little girls, and for that matter some of the boys clothes, too?
My second example: K-mart. My, but, they are just as bad.

Now, raising 3 children, without support from the other "parents", I am left with not as much money as I would like. Even worse are times when I would love to be able to get clothing at a decent price. I will be damned, however, before I will go to some of these estblishments to purchace them. Some of these stores seem hell-bent that I buy a pair of shorts that barely cover MY children decently. Since when do my sons need jeans that show...ahem...ANYTHING? As far as that goes, why does my 7 year old daughter need a top with a plunging neck-line?


These are just my opinions. I'm glad someone had the brains to point this out to others who seem to think this way of dressing CHILDREN is "ok".
As a loving, concerned parent, I don't find one thing "ok" with it.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I and this is Snow coming from Snow space..

I think that these disturbing images do feed the sick fuckhead pedophiles out there. I mean come on, look at the adds parading our children like meat for anyone to look at, release themselves to etc.

If you really can't see that I have to say I am shocked anyone does not.. I am blessed that my soon to be 10 year old still has some innocence left, and that his little mind is still about playing in the park, bowling and not other disturbing things.

We allow the media to pimp out our kids and stay silent. Pisses me off. Our kids don't have a network such as Animal Planet.

I think we should.. I really do, our kids are not advocated ENOUGH.

That is all I have to say about that for now.

[SuperFemme]

Sexualized children and pedophilia are so NOT two separate and distinct issues.

Not if you are Jon Benet Ramsey. Not if you are the mother letting your child dress like what she see's in the MMS and sending her out to the playground never to be seen again.

Not if you are the registered sex offender who cannot download kiddie porn but have access to Toddlers in Tiara's and a bottle of lotion.

Funny you mention buying stuff at Lands End, while the people who cannot afford that are stuck shopping at K-mart and Wal-Mart with a vast array of inappropriate clothing but limited stuff any of want to dress our girls in. I wonder if that ties into the fact that a lot of girls disappear from homes of underprivileged parents? If that somehow makes them more susceptible?

Because while sexualizing children doesn't CAUSE pedophilia, it is certainly not a deterrent is it?

[The_Lady_Snow]

Lady Snow, I do see that. Pedophiles would exist without the media images though. It is to me more harmful that our children are paraded around and that our culture accepts that. There are many people who would say that queers, just by their very existence, promote pedophilia. The sexual images of children in the media are not viewed as child pornography and I think this desensitizes people to the sexual content in them. By that I mean they don't maybe view it as sinister. The bar gets raised incrementally higher for what people will tolerate.


Um what does queer have to do with the hyper sexualization of our children?

I will be honest none of the queer parents I know, dress their kids provocatively, and I am not saying there aren't queers that do. You don't think that some young kid who has these thoughts about kids isn't going to use these add as a stepping stone to worse images?

really?

I know they are born this way but when they have nothing to get a hold of, magazines, catalogs and a walk in the park become their erotic images. I know for me, nothing could make me accept any of the add put up in this
thread.

It's disgusting and gross that our children are pimped out for the sake of Brand Name clothing...

If I was filthy rich I wouldn't do that to my kids I made sure when with me my kids were kids, not tiny Guess ads.

[The_Lady_Snow]

No!!! It is NOT the fault of a mother who dresses a child a certain way!!! How can you say that???? Is this along the lines of a woman who dresses provocatively is asking to be raped???? So am I supposed to go back and figure out what I wore that attracted a pedophile to me and take responsibility for that? NO!!!!!



Um I have 2 daughters...

I did NOT buy them any booty shorts and lemme tell you one of them wanted them bad cause everyone else had them. Know how hard it is not to find booty shorts??

So who else is to blame when 12 year old Nancy is in daisy dukes?

Parents!!!

They have the money, not Nancy

Just sayin'

[SuperFemme]

There is no reason an 8 year old girl needs to be wearing thong underwear, or daisy dukes and a tube top. No reason.

[julieisafemme]

I am simply trying to make the point that queers are blamed and labeled as pedophiles by straight culture. I was making no comments about queer parents at all.

This is too personal an issue for me and I am not communicating clearly. I apologize for that. I still maintain that pedophiles do not need sexual images of children to promote their behavior. That does not mean in any way that I agree with or condone of the sexualization of children in media or in any other way. I just want children to stop being hurt.

Um what does queer have to do with the hyper sexualization of our children?

I will be honest none of the queer parents I know, dress their kids provocatively, and I am not saying there aren't queers that do. You don't think that some young kid who has these thoughts about kids isn't going to use these add as a stepping stone to worse images?

really?

I know they are born this way but when they have nothing to get a hold of, magazines, catalogs and a walk in the park become their erotic images. I know for me, nothing could make me accept any of the add put up in this
thread.

It's disgusting and gross that our children are pimped out for the sake of Brand Name clothing...

If I was filthy rich I wouldn't do that to my kids I made sure when with me my kids were kids, not tiny Guess ads.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I am simply trying to make the point that queers are blamed and labeled as pedophiles by straight culture. I was making no comments about queer parents at all.

This is too personal an issue for me and I am not communicating clearly. I apologize for that. I still maintain that pedophiles do not need sexual images of children to promote their behavior. That does not mean in any way that I agree with or condone of the sexualization of children in media or in any other way. I just want children to stop being hurt.



My disgusting uncle used the Sears catalog to wack his shit to. Girls section.

Just sayin'

[Lady Pamela]

I am simply trying to make the point that queers are blamed and labeled as pedophiles by straight culture. I was making no comments about queer parents at all.

This is too personal an issue for me and I am not communicating clearly. I apologize for that. I still maintain that pedophiles do not need sexual images of children to promote their behavior. That does not mean in any way that I agree with or condone of the sexualization of children in media or in any other way. I just want children to stop being hurt.

Yes..I agree that sick minded people don't need anything to promote there sick twisted minds.

But..Do you not see how the media,
by allowing things to be broadcast..in a sexual tone,
To innocent children and young adults,
Is fueling the sick minds of these people who are dangerious?

And lets add to that,
Children wearing clothing that other adults put onto the market because it makes children look/feel older and sexy.
But they put it on the shelf for the almighty dollar.
Without any reguards to our babies.

This also " fuels " the already twisted minds ...and promotes reaction...whatever that be.


No it is not just the fault of the media or the cloths maker.
But they do fuel the flame without reguard to our childrens safety.
They will even tell you in promoting products that "Sex Sales".

As far as people who sale clothes like this,
Then there are those who fight for child safety but at the same , they sale this crap.
Those who sale them and are oblivious to this thought....thus needing an eye opener.
Or those who pass the buck..Blame it on the parents alone...And leave it all to them.
" Nothing wrong with putting the weight on the parents shoulders" Don't get me wrong...But where did human concern and decency go for mankind?

Out the door for the next buck!


One more thing then I will be quiet...{for a minute..lol}...I promise..

Someone brought up woman who got raped, and if she deserved it by what she chose to wear... etc.

Of course the woman never deserved it.
The mind of the person who raped was warped well before this woman was present.

BUT,
What you wear and the circumstances where you wear it... could entice that type of person to react on sick intentions.

I fought that fight in court and won...
My rapist was put behind 4 walls.

Was it my choice to wear tight jeans and a slightly reveaing shirt with heals....Sure

Was it my fault I got raped from wearing it?
No it was not...I did not give permission for that.

But could it have egnited something...Though...still not my fault...yes.

Oh and to tie em all togther...I was young and wearing things to entice older ppl..And it most definately did!

Also ..My mother was way against it by the way...
I would changed when I left...I was a rebel hell child.
So it is not always the mamma's fault either.


Just speaking from a me/my/mine point of view...
Not attacking anyones views here.

Nor directing this towards any one person.

[PinkieLee]

I have a good friend of mine that signed her 6 year old daughter up for dance classes this year for the very first time. After just a few short months, she decided to take her daughter out of the classes... all because of the clothing that she was wearing.

She said that the instructors had uniforms for the girls to wear in class (of course, the short booty shorts). Within a few weeks, those lil' black booty shorts, that all the girls were wearing, was the ONLY thing that her daughter wanted to wear...to school and around the house. She would put longer shorts on her, and she would pull the damn things up to her chest, to make them short like the rest of the girls. It became a constant battle every day...her 6 year old was throwing a fit because she wasn't gonna be dressed like all of her friends.

She questioned some of the other mothers & dance instructors about it, and they acted like it was no big deal. But, she had a major problem with it, and was shocked that more people weren't cautious about how their kids were dressed or paraded around.

[SuperFemme]

I have a good friend of mine that signed her 6 year old daughter up for dance classes this year for the very first time. After just a few short months, she decided to take her daughter out of the classes... all because of the clothing that she was wearing.

She said that the instructors had uniforms for the girls to wear in class (of course, the short booty shorts). Within a few weeks, those lil' black booty shorts, that all the girls were wearing, was the ONLY thing that her daughter wanted to wear...to school and around the house. She would put longer shorts on her, and she would pull the damn things up to her chest, to make them short like the rest of the girls. It became a constant battle every day...her 6 year old was throwing a fit because she wasn't gonna be dressed like all of her friends.

She questioned some of the other mothers & dance instructors about it, and they acted like it was no big deal. But, she had a major problem with it, and was shocked that more people weren't cautious about how their kids were dressed or paraded around.

Good for her. One day her daughter will get it. I hope.

It seems that often times parents are so busy being their child's "Peer" that they give in to anything the kid wants. I am particularly bothered by teens whose Mommas dress like them and share all their personal info (like what happened on Mommas date, her sex life, etc.) with their kids. The lines get blurred and I stand to the side fascinated.

[betenoire]

And we can't forget Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby....

I have mixed feelings about that movie. Well, maybe not -mixed- feelings, but...here's the deal.

I like that movie. A lot. It's easily one of my favourites of all time. (Although I have to fast forward through the "selling her virginity" scene). I get why that movie squicks people out, I do. But I also think that movie is -very- different from the sexualisation of children via pageants and commercials and letting your kid wear knee-high platform boots.

Pageants, adverts, too grown-up clothing for children are all framed in a "this is okay, this is normal, this is acceptable" light. Pretty Baby, on the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that the people involved in making that movie made it from the perspective of "this shit happened and this shit is bad and had far-reaching impact on the people that this shit happened to". I don't feel like that movie in any way tried to frame the sexualisation of the character that Brooke Shields played as anything positive.

Now, what does concern me is how the adults in Brooke's life at the time framed things for her, or if they bothered to talk to her about it at all. I really have no idea. But I do hope that she had several sit-downs with an adult who explained to her that the things her character did or see are awful things for a little girl to do or see. I hope the grownups in her life checked in with her frequently to see how she was doing.

But I do think that vilifying a movie that depicts childhood prostitution and equating it with being pro-sexualisation-of-children is akin to insisting that a movie in which a rape or murder occurs is pro-rape or pro-murder. It's just not the same thing.

[Dylan]

Um what does queer have to do with the hyper sexualization of our children?

I will be honest none of the queer parents I know, dress their kids provocatively, and I am not saying there aren't queers that do. You don't think that some young kid who has these thoughts about kids isn't going to use these add as a stepping stone to worse images?

really?

I know they are born this way but when they have nothing to get a hold of, magazines, catalogs and a walk in the park become their erotic images. I know for me, nothing could make me accept any of the add put up in this
thread.

It's disgusting and gross that our children are pimped out for the sake of Brand Name clothing...

If I was filthy rich I wouldn't do that to my kids I made sure when with me my kids were kids, not tiny Guess ads.

I think you took Julie's post out of context. She was merely (re)stating the obvious stereotype that queers are pedophiles.

Hell, my own aunt wouldn't let me take my female cousin to the zoo with her brothers, because of this vile stereotype...while she said it had nothing to do with me 'personally'.



I'm Just Sayin'...I Think You Took That Part Out Of Context,
Dylan

[SuperFemme]

This thing is that there is not really statistical data to back up the Queers are Pedophiles thing.

I don't think the same can be said about sexualized children becoming victims of sexual abuse.

It's a red herring.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I think you took Julie's post out of context. She was merely (re)stating the obvious stereotype that queers are pedophiles.

Hell, my own aunt wouldn't let me take my female cousin to the zoo with her brothers, because of this vile stereotype...while she said it had nothing to do with me 'personally'.



I'm Just Sayin'...I Think You Took That Part Out Of Context,
Dylan


I am ok with my post

[Dylan]

This thing is that there is not really statistical data to back up the Queers are Pedophiles thing.

I don't think the same can be said about sexualized children becoming victims of sexual abuse.

It's a red herring.

I don't disagree with you at all. Has the xtian right EVER need actual statistical data?

I didn't read Julie as disagreeing with anything you're saying here (or anything Snow said).

I have to agree with Julie that pedophiles would exist whether or not children are sexualized (which is what I read her as saying)

And I agree, it's a red herring...so I don't understand why anyone's making a big deal about the (obvious) queers/pedophiles comment.


Dylan

[The_Lady_Snow]

I don't see where a BIG DEAL was made....

but ok...

I still think the images are a stepping stone to these fuckers getting off when they can't find someone or an image on the internets.

*shrugs*

[SuperFemme]

do you think it is my head injury or the cancer that makes me agree AND disagree with everyone lately? i feel so bi-polar.

[IrishGrrl]

As a parent of a daughter, I also found it very difficult to find clothes for her to wear. My rule was the shorts had to be no shorter than 2 inches above the knee, shorts under skirts, and when raising her arms, her belly wasnt allowed to show. This was often done by buying clothes that were a size or two bigger. She wasnt allowed to wear those tiny high heels for kids, (except her princess pair she got and only around the house) I went balistic when she would go to friends houses and put make up on at age 6. When she went to live with her dad for awhile at age 10, his gf taught her how to shave her legs, and when I got pissed off, and asked why he would let her do that, he said.."because it's cute!" Jeez. Then her aunt took her to pierce her ears at age 11. I didnt appreciate that either.

Recently I saw an article about the Bratz company selling padded training bras at walmart.
Gross.

[Dylan]

I don't see where a BIG DEAL was made....

but ok...

I still think the images are a stepping stone to these fuckers getting off when they can't find someone or an image on the internets.

*shrugs*

I don't disagree with you at all.

But didn't you also say your family member used the Sears catalog?

Pedophiles aren't going to stop being pedophiles just because we take little kids outta skimpy clothes.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the sexualization of (predominantly female) children. I think it's completely gross.


I Really Don't Think Anyone Disagrees With What You're Saying,
Dylan

[SuperFemme]

As a parent of a daughter, I also found it very difficult to find clothes for her to wear. My rule was the shorts had to be no shorter than 2 inches above the knee, shorts under skirts, and when raising her arms, her belly wasnt allowed to show. This was often done by buying clothes that were a size or two bigger. She wasnt allowed to wear those tiny high heels for kids, (except her princess pair she got and only around the house) I went balistic when she would go to friends houses and put make up on at age 6. When she went to live with her dad for awhile at age 10, his gf taught her how to shave her legs, and when I got pissed off, and asked why he would let her do that, he said.."because it's cute!" Jeez. Then her aunt took her to pierce her ears at age 11. I didnt appreciate that either.

Recently I saw an article about the Bratz company selling padded training bras at walmart.
Gross.

http://about-face.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/bratzbras.JPG

[The_Lady_Snow]

I don't disagree with you at all.

But didn't you also say your family member used the Sears catalog?

Pedophiles aren't going to stop being pedophiles just because we take little kids outta skimpy clothes.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the sexualization of (predominantly female) children. I think it's completely gross.


I Really Don't Think Anyone Disagrees With What You're Saying,
Dylan


That I did...

When he wasn't chasing me around the fucking house.

[The_Lady_Snow]

http://about-face.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/bratzbras.JPG


Here's an article on this

http://www.feministing.com/archives/005685.html



http://hindumommy.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/64_1_b.jpg

Yeah my girls....

No way would they ever get these, nor my future grand kids...


http://community.feministing.com/2008/07/girls-bras.html

[Lady Pamela]

I don't disagree with you at all.

But didn't you also say your family member used the Sears catalog?

Pedophiles aren't going to stop being pedophiles just because we take little kids outta skimpy clothes.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the sexualization of (predominantly female) children. I think it's completely gross.


I Really Don't Think Anyone Disagrees With What You're Saying,
Dylan


You are correct in the fact it won't stop the twisted sick people from being just that...
But

It will stop exposer to entice them everytime they turn around.
It will atleast slow the reactions because it isn't being promoted everyday
It will also perhaps save one or more children or youth from having to endure a lifetime of hell.

It is true that they may find resources elsewhere
But to take it out of the lime light will definately slow it down at the very least.

They have tests they run on offenders now which prove that magazines,pictures of children in risky clothes, etc
Excite them.
They are using this more and more to determine the type of petifile these people are once the are caught.

Those tests all by themselves prove that when shown a pic...The body reacts...And in a sick mind..They react in a sick fashion.

In my opinion

[SuperFemme]

I have never jumped into Julie's online posting. I know she is a full grown adult woman and can handle herself. I am going to comment now because I do have real time exposure to Julie because we have been dating for almost 18 months now. I met Julie when she was at the beginning of a very contentious divorce and that legal matter is still unresolved.

Why am I spelling such personal matters out here in a post? Because what you don't know nor should you have had any reason to know, is that Julie's soon to be ex-husband stalks her postings and mine on both this site and the Dash site. He attempts to enter some of the posts made by both of us into the public court record of this pending divorce.

Julie did not ask me to make this post. I am doing this on my own volition. I do not want her ex to in any way misunderstand, take out of context, what was posted here by Julie. I have seen Julie with her daughter on a very regular basis. Julie does not condone pedophilia. Nor does she think it is okay for children to dress in a provocative manner.

I believe some of Julie's posting may have been taken out of context. IMO it is easy to do when all communication is purely in written form. I also know that some of us here, are survivors of some sort of childhood sexual abuse. I know for me, I sometimes get very triggered when I perceive even the slightest condoning of using children, male or female as sexual objects in any way. My perceptions can push my buttons big time.

Please, you do not have to agree with me or Julie and our views. Again, I am attempting to be very clear that Julie does not parent her daughter in any way that condones pedophilia or any other illegal and damaging behavior that would hurt her daughter.


I don't think there is any way that anyone could read any of Ms. Julies posts and for a hot second think that she condones children as sexual objects.

Nothing she said even comes close to that.

Conversely, as somebody who has gone through a very ugly custody battle? I'd like to remind you that what you post here is public. Because of that it's admissible. Proceed accordingly.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I have never jumped into Julie's online posting. I know she is a full grown adult woman and can handle herself. I am going to comment now because I do have real time exposure to Julie because we have been dating for almost 18 months now. I met Julie when she was at the beginning of a very contentious divorce and that legal matter is still unresolved.

Why am I spelling such personal matters out here in a post? Because what you don't know nor should you have had any reason to know, is that Julie's soon to be ex-husband stalks her postings and mine on both this site and the Dash site. He attempts to enter some of the posts made by both of us into the public court record of this pending divorce.

Julie did not ask me to make this post. I am doing this on my own volition. I do not want her ex to in any way misunderstand, take out of context, what was posted here by Julie. I have seen Julie with her daughter on a very regular basis. Julie does not condone pedophilia. Nor does she think it is okay for children to dress in a provocative manner.

I believe some of Julie's posting may have been taken out of context. IMO it is easy to do when all communication is purely in written form. I also know that some of us here, are survivors of some sort of childhood sexual abuse. I know for me, I sometimes get very triggered when I perceive even the slightest condoning of using children, male or female as sexual objects in any way. My perceptions can push my buttons big time.

Please, you do not have to agree with me or Julie and our views. Again, I am attempting to be very clear that Julie does not parent her daughter in any way that condones pedophilia or any other illegal and damaging behavior that would hurt her daughter.


I don't believe anyone was saying julie is a bad parent or one that condones pedophilia.

Snow

who knows about custody battles and such

PS

Does this mean we can't ever have a discussion with julie again??? I don't get you coming in here I really don't.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I gotta add after reading the rep notes..

The ex isn't gonna come after julie cause of her BFP postings, and all that, it's gonna be the fact she is with some queer.

I know this for the fact my ex husband tries that shit all the time. His beef is the fact she is in your bed..

Sucks but it's true

[tuffboi29]

do you think it is my head injury or the cancer that makes me agree AND disagree with everyone lately? i feel so bi-polar.

(I, too, find myself in conflicting feeling on this regard.)

After reading through this thread last night, I really didn't think I would come back in to view anymore. Alas, I found myself thinking on this subject hard.

I did some research on the subject, and came to my own conclusions on this matter.

It is a proven fact that adds of this sort do stimulate pedephiles in a sexual manner.

Now with that being said; I am left with a few remaining questions...
#1. If it is the case where these images DO stimulate the responses of pedephiles, HOW CAN it be legal, let alone ALLOWED?
#2. Why is it that stores geared tword lower-income families have smut items in their clothing selections for children, when statistically speaking, most victims are FROM lower-income families? Coincidence? I'm leaning twords, NO. Or, should that be a "Hell NO!"?
Now, my most important question...
#3. How can ANY adult, in their right mind, think to make an add, in which a child is put into a sexual light? Is there something about the person developing the add we should know about? Maybe that individual needs to be checked for pedephile tendencies.

Once again, these are just my opinions.

[Soon]

I just googled *pedophilia and media images of children* to find any research/evidence on this subject, and this thread is the first result.

:|

[Lady Pamela]

(I, too, find myself in conflicting feeling on this regard.)

After reading through this thread last night, I really didn't think I would come back in to view anymore. Alas, I found myself thinking on this subject hard.

I did some research on the subject, and came to my own conclusions on this matter.

It is a proven fact that adds of this sort do stimulate pedephiles in a sexual manner.

Now with that being said; I am left with a few remaining questions...
#1. If it is the case where these images DO stimulate the responses of pedephiles, HOW CAN it be legal, let alone ALLOWED?
#2. Why is it that stores geared tword lower-income families have smut items in their clothing selections for children, when statistically speaking, most victims are FROM lower-income families? Coincidence? I'm leaning twords, NO. Or, should that be a "Hell NO!"?
Now, my most important question...
#3. How can ANY adult, in their right mind, think to make an add, in which a child is put into a sexual light? Is there something about the person developing the add we should know about? Maybe that individual needs to be checked for pedephile tendencies.

Once again, these are just my opinions.



In reply:

The almighty dollar is at stake if they choose diffrently...It will not reach as many people so to speak, if they choose to change the clothing.
Sucks but that is how they as well as media think.
That is one area that the saying" Money is the root of all evil applies"
Not true with everyone though

This all will change if people find their voices and start speaking out.
Together United!
Then things can turn around eventually.

As for it being legal:

This is because some people tread on the middle line of our rights.
Also, some only see fame and never take time to truely look at the other sides. This happens alot. Not all people are doers and thinkers. Some follow what they have been taught.
Alot of people simply work for fame or more money because this means success to them.

As for the stores:
Those on a limited buget are forced to shop in certain places true.
This is why they do this.
Same as they hike up prices on things we can't live without..everyone.
Such as diapers, baby foods, etc

But those families also have other options as well...
Alot of people in my area trade coupons, pass down clothes, shop thrift shops, garage sales and buy only what they like and can afford...Kindof a silient boycott of such actions.

[SuperFemme]

I just googled *pedophilia and media images of children* to find any research/evidence on this subject, and this thread is the first result.

:|

And that is why I use Bing vs. Google. It is much more reliable.

I too, Googled "Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/advertisers-to-investigate-sexual-images-of-children-20091130-k178.html
(i guess dylan didn't read this)

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Pedophilia_on_the_Internet.pdf
(the internet which carries images of over sexualized children and pedophiles. relevant.)


http://americansfortruth.com/issues/pedophiliapederasty
(dylan approved)

http://www.etherzone.com/2010/mako011110.shtml
(a tidbit about a society where pornography and obscenity flourish and where children are sexualized.)

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431 (this one is all about us gay pedophiles)

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/ppitv.htm
(this one may be stretching it a bit, but did come up in the first few links of search)


Imagine my surprise when the planet didn't even show up on a search. :|

Thank you Dylan, for educating me on "relevance". I can die happy now.

[Soon]

And that is why I use Bing vs. Google. It is much more reliable.

I too, Googled "Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/advertisers-to-investigate-sexual-images-of-children-20091130-k178.html

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Pedophilia_on_the_Internet.pdf

http://americansfortruth.com/issues/pedophiliapederasty

http://www.etherzone.com/2010/mako011110.shtml

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431 (this one is all about us gay pedophiles)

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/ppitv.htm

Imagine my surprise when the planet didn't even show up on a search. :|




Interesting! And here I've been loving my Google Chrome! I wonder why the discrepancy in search results (i have no idea about these things.).

[Dylan]

And that is why I use Bing vs. Google. It is much more reliable.

I too, Googled "Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/advertisers-to-investigate-sexual-images-of-children-20091130-k178.html

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Pedophilia_on_the_Internet.pdf

http://americansfortruth.com/issues/pedophiliapederasty

http://www.etherzone.com/2010/mako011110.shtml

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431 (this one is all about us gay pedophiles)

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/ppitv.htm

Imagine my surprise when the planet didn't even show up on a search. :|




It's usually a good idea to actually read the articles one is posting, as the articles don't even correlate to the conversation

Except the one you posted about amercans for truth prattling on about how homos are pedophiles


Just Sayin',
Dylan

[SuperFemme]

Interesting! And here I've been loving my Google Chrome! I wonder why the discrepancy in search results (i have no idea about these things.).

Have you not seen the commercials? They are SO true. I googled and sure enough, the planet came first. Crazy.

H0f8X_SOVjA

t_xjQ4kDCtk

[Soon]

It's usually a good idea to actually read the articles one is posting, as the articles don't even correlate to the conversation

Except the one you posted about amercans for truth prattling on about how homos are pedophiles


Just Sayin',
Dylan


Even more interesting! I knew the Americans for Truth one would be trash, but I hadn't clicked on any of the sites yet.

I was just surprised that two different search engines could yield such different results.

So, if at least google came back with the this conversation, it is relevant to the topic at hand.

[Dylan]

(I, too, find myself in conflicting feeling on this regard.)

After reading through this thread last night, I really didn't think I would come back in to view anymore. Alas, I found myself thinking on this subject hard.

I did some research on the subject, and came to my own conclusions on this matter.

It is a proven fact that adds of this sort do stimulate pedephiles in a sexual manner.

Now with that being said; I am left with a few remaining questions...
#1. If it is the case where these images DO stimulate the responses of pedephiles, HOW CAN it be legal, let alone ALLOWED?
#2. Why is it that stores geared tword lower-income families have smut items in their clothing selections for children, when statistically speaking, most victims are FROM lower-income families? Coincidence? I'm leaning twords, NO. Or, should that be a "Hell NO!"?
Now, my most important question...
#3. How can ANY adult, in their right mind, think to make an add, in which a child is put into a sexual light? Is there something about the person developing the add we should know about? Maybe that individual needs to be checked for pedephile tendencies.

Once again, these are just my opinions.

And here's an issue I have swirling around my brain

Ok, so kids in swimsuits turn on pedophiles.

Ok, so half dressed women turn on rapists

Do we take away the ads, and make society in general responsible for the sick minds, or do we make the sick minds responsible for their own brains/actions?

Now, again, I'm in no way condoning the sexualization of children, however, I (me,me,me) don't see a child in a swimsuit and think gross thoughts...now do I think most people here think gross thoughts. It's not the child's fault. It's not the parent's fault. It's no one's fault but the pedophile. And, if we take away the child in a swimsuit, does that cure the pedophile? No.

So, what? We take away all of the pictures of half dressed women and swimsuited children? We cover up all women and children to 'protect' them?

Isn't that what they do in Iran? And how many people here have a problem with the way they treat women in Iran?


Dylan

[Soon]

If you Google pretty much any of our thread titles and use the exact same or almost exact same verbiage, of course they will show up in Google.

I thought of that too--of course, after I got the results and actually looked at my key words and then the title of this thread!

I was still a bit surprised that the four key words of pedophilia, media, images and children (in my search) would make this site the first result b/c I presumed there would be a lot of articles/discussion/research on this topic that would give other sites primacy in the results.

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

[SuperFemme]

It's usually a good idea to actually read the articles one is posting, as the articles don't even correlate to the conversation

Except the one you posted about amercans for truth prattling on about how homos are pedophiles


Just Sayin',
Dylan

See my edit oh Relevance Avenger.

Snort,
Adele

[SuperFemme]

And here's an issue I have swirling around my brain

Ok, so kids in swimsuits turn on pedophiles.

Ok, so half dressed women turn on rapists

Do we take away the ads, and make society in general responsible for the sick minds, or do we make the sick minds responsible for their own brains/actions?

Now, again, I'm in no way condoning the sexualization of children, however, I (me,me,me) don't see a child in a swimsuit and think gross thoughts...now do I think most people here think gross thoughts. It's not the child's fault. It's not the parent's fault. It's no one's fault but the pedophile. And, if we take away the child in a swimsuit, does that cure the pedophile? No.

So, what? We take away all of the pictures of half dressed women and swimsuited children? We cover up all women and children to 'protect' them?

Isn't that what they do in Iran? And how many people here have a problem with the way they treat women in Iran?


Dylan

So.

What is it exactly you are saying?

I am not really sure how this reads.

From my *Me* place here is my summation (of the topic):

Pedophiles will be Pedophile, regardless of the state of dress of the victims.

Take away the over-sexualized children and you've still got pedophiles.

Remove Pedophiles from the equation.

Practice good parenting. Let your children be children. Whether or not a six year old in a thong & padded bra attracts abuse, a six year old and a thong/padded bra don't go together.

Work on making your children comfortable with their bodies, with who they are and let them be kids.

sex and children do not go together, whatever the reason.

that is all.

[Martina]

It's not just about attracting pedophiles. Making girls feel like they are going to get attention because they look sexual is not healthy for them.

That's going to happen eventually. But it should happen when they choose it and when they are genuinely interested in that kind of attention.

Children are more sexual than we give them credit for. i am not for squelching their interest in their sexual selves.

i am against having them VALUE themselves largely because they are sexually attractive. That's damaging to them.

There is research that shows that athletics raises girls' self-esteem. i think it's because it allows them to be physical and in touch with their bodies in a way that is directly pleasing, that is not about someone ELSE'S attention.

Making girls' self-esteem dependent on the attention they get from strangers, on how they look, and not just that, on how they look when made up -- those aren't lessons we want young folks taking to heart.

It's great to play with make-up. But if kids are doing that on their own, they do not come out looking like Little Miss Massachusetts. Has anyone seen those TV shows? Those kids go through torture to come out looking like that. At the very least, it's got to be massively boring. As much as they tell their moms and dads they want to do this stuff, when you look at their faces as they are waiting to be sprayed with tanning stuff or have a wig fitted or are practicing the same dance steps the zillionth time, you can tell they are not having a good time. They like the attention. That's all.

But we ought to give them attention for doing things they like to do the way they like doing them. i recall one of my favorite gifts as a child was this kit where you could print newspapers, the front page. i used that kit up making the most banal headlines. i was delighted with each one. The parents made every effort to be too.

i also remember coming home from camp one year totally covered with bites and scrapes, some of which turned into scars. Instead of my mom worrying about my body being scarred up, she would point to a scar later and say, "You sure had a great time at summer camp that year. I have never SEEN a kid come home more beaten up!"

[Dylan]

Work on making your children comfortable with their bodies, with who they are and let them be kids.

sex and children do not go together, whatever the reason.

that is all.

Right.

But we were talking about pedophiles

The issue of dressing (predominantly/especially girl) children in risque clothing in an attempt to give them breasts and booties is a whole 'nother issue to be delved into if we're off the topic of pedophiles.


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

Right.

But we were talking about pedophiles

The issue of dressing (predominantly/especially girl) children in risque clothing in an attempt to give them breasts and booties is a whole 'nother issue to be delved into if we're off the topic of pedophiles.


Dylan

I thought we were talking about Sexual Images of Children in the Media and if that promotes Pedophilia? Not Pedophilia as a stand alone.

The issue of kids in risque clothing is not off the topic of Sexual Images of Children in the Media.

It's all relevant.

Unless it's not.

[Medusa]

A child in a swimsuit - not sexual.

A child in a string bikini with padding in the chest area and a thong back on the bottoms? Not. So. Much.


When I separate the issue and look at the child's right to be a child, I get angry thinking about the child having to swim in a fucking jogging suit because some pervert might see them.
I don't think that's the answer.

I actually went to a private water park one time and they had a sign up in the kiddie area that said "You MUST have a child swimming in this area to remain in this area". I asked one of the people at the snackbar what caused them to place that sign and she said that there were a couple of pedophiles who had come to the swimming area to "take pictures and hang out"....and Im not fucking kidding when I say that I got my drinks and went back to the kiddie area (where my best friend and I had taken her boys for the day) and there was a woman who had stripped the wet bathing suits off of her children (who appeared to be no more than 2 or 3 years old) and was re-dressing them right out there in the open.

I don't think people should have to wear head to toe cover to keep from "enticing" a Pedophile. Not at all. I think Pedophiles should not be allowed in water parks, schools, skating rinks, malls, etc. or other places where children are generally present. Im WAY black and white on that issue and realize that I would much rather err on the side of taking away the rights of a Pedophile than subjecting even one child to abuse.

I see a distinct sexualization of children in a lot of clothing, games, media, and toys that are available today and I think that they *do* play at least a small part in the idea of "children as sexual objects". Not saying that a Pedophile isnt responsible or that they wont offend or molest a child in a jogging suit but Im more thinking about underage teenage girls who appear to be much older or because someone might perceive them as more sexually available because of the clothing they wear than they actually are.
It's not *their* fault that the world sexualizes them.

I do think that parents and society at large have a responsibility to keep them safe and to make their youth as available to them as possible.

[Hudson]

As a volunteer for the largest non-profit anti-predator organization, I just want to say that it would be wise and responsible to delete this entire thread as it most certainly will come up in searches, not only by pedophiles but by trained volunteers who perform searches as a means of policing and cleaning up the internet. Some, including law enforcement officials, use highly sophisticated software to do this.

Link (http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/software-helps-law-enforcement-officers-track-child-pornography-151990.php)

A word of warning to those sharing images and/or downloading them to their computers or uploading them to remote storage sites:

"Many computer users do not realize that everything they do while online can be traced by police armed with the appropriate software. Even images that users believe have been permanently erased from their computers can be found by computer forensic specialists."

Also, this thread (if not read properly) can promote the popular myth that queer people are pedophiles. Pedophiles employ the use of sarcasm on their sites as well in order to have the public conversations they want to have.

**I'd also like to point out that users who choose to include infant children in avatars, signature photos, or even your galleries (wonder how many pedos will attempt to join this site after the most recent thread topic and images?) are putting those children at risk. It is highly irresponsible.

I'd also like to point out that two of the other thread titles on the main page right now are 'For My babygirl' and 'The Daddy Girl Dynamic House'. Folks here know what those threads/topics are all about, but anti-queer readers and the 'homo=pedo' readers and the child predators out there likely do not. Be careful about what you may be inadvertently promoting.

[Bob]

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8171/childforums.jpg

[betenoire]

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8171/childforums.jpg

omg HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[SuperFemme]

Further conversations on this subject shall call he who must not be named: Voldemart.

Or better yet, Wonderschlong.

[Nat]

I think Hudson makes some good points.

At the same time, I think this is a topic very much worth discussing.

I don't think sexualized images of children lead directly to pedophilia.

I do think the messages conveyed in that sort of advertising may equate to a sort of tacit societal nod in the direction of child objectification, exploitation and abuse.

[Dylan]

I thought we were talking about Sexual Images of Children in the Media and if that promotes Pedophilia? Not Pedophilia as a stand alone.

The issue of kids in risque clothing is not off the topic of Sexual Images of Children in the Media.

It's all relevant.

Unless it's not.

Jesus H. I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said they were two different topics.

There are different reasons for one and the other.

If we're done talking about Voldemort, than yeah, I think the sexualization of children is sexist and a sick sort of 'grooming' of children (girls), and I don't put it too far from the kind of 'grooming' that's done by cults like the FLDS. It's just a grooming that's done on a larger scale and condoned by this society as 'right'.

It's preparing girls to be objectified and sexualized and breeders. It's preparing girls to always find fault with their bodies, and to never think they're worthy or capable of more than being a glorified housekeeper and child bearer. It's preparing girls to get ready for the fact that you're only 'worth' something if men find you attractive....and if you're 'pleasing' and 'catering' and 'caretakery' enough...and you don't mind playing second fiddle, because whatever boys do is much more exciting and important.

I find it completely disturbing on a number of levels.


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

Jesus H. I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said they were two different topics.

There are different reasons for one and the other.

If we're done talking about Voldemort, than yeah, I think the sexualization of children is sexist and a sick sort of 'grooming' of children (girls), and I don't put it too far from the kind of 'grooming' that's done by cults like the FLDS. It's just a grooming that's done on a larger scale and condoned by this society as 'right'.

It's preparing girls to be objectified and sexualized and breeders. It's preparing girls to always find fault with their bodies, and to never think they're worthy or capable of more than being a glorified housekeeper and child bearer. It's preparing girls to get ready for the fact that you're only 'worth' something if men find you attractive....and if you're 'pleasing' and 'catering' and 'caretakery' enough...and you don't mind playing second fiddle, because whatever boys do is much more exciting and important.

I find it completely disturbing on a number of levels.


Dylan

can you puh-lease refrain from using the word "breeders"? it is so highly offensive and rude to those of us here that have given birth Dylan.

[Lady Pamela]

As a volunteer for the largest non-profit anti-predator organization, I just want to say that it would be wise and responsible to delete this entire thread as it most certainly will come up in searches, not only by pedophiles but by trained volunteers who perform searches as a means of policing and cleaning up the internet. Some, including law enforcement officials, use highly sophisticated software to do this.

Link (http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/software-helps-law-enforcement-officers-track-child-pornography-151990.php)

A word of warning to those sharing images and/or downloading them to their computers or uploading them to remote storage sites:

"Many computer users do not realize that everything they do while online can be traced by police armed with the appropriate software. Even images that users believe have been permanently erased from their computers can be found by computer forensic specialists."

Also, this thread (if not read properly) can promote the popular myth that queer people are pedophiles. Pedophiles employ the use of sarcasm on their sites as well in order to have the public conversations they want to have.

**I'd also like to point out that users who choose to include infant children in avatars, signature photos, or even your galleries (wonder how many pedos will attempt to join this site after the most recent thread topic and images?) are putting those children at risk. It is highly irresponsible.

I'd also like to point out that two of the other thread titles on the main page right now are 'For My babygirl' and 'The Daddy Girl Dynamic House'. Folks here know what those threads/topics are all about, but anti-queer readers and the 'homo=pedo' readers and the child predators out there likely do not. Be careful about what you may be inadvertently promoting.



Very good point to bring to light actually
But,
The only way they would actually take notes and create an issue if if child porn or something to that degree was present and being shared.

The only types of pictures being shown here are adds.
Gross ones but yet still legal.

And no one is promoting any type of sick actions on here..

So this thread is fine.

[Dylan]

can you puh-lease refrain from using the word "breeders"? it is so highly offensive and rude to those of us here that have given birth Dylan.

I swear you're just looking to start an argument today. You're completely nitpicking everything today.

There is a very specific reason I used the term breeders...as in one who breeds. Not in the straight people are breeders way.

Girls are literally groomed in this country to be baby breeders and to reproduce. They're taught from the youngest age that making babies makes them 'worth something'. They're groomed to 'take care of' those babies from before they can even speak.

Yes, breeder is exactly the word I wanted. Because, there's obviously something wrong with women who don't want to or haven't had children. This same line of thinking promotes the idea that (since women are only good for sex and reproduction) that women don't have the right to choose whether or not they get pregnant/give birth.

Women are often judged on what kind of 'mothers' they are...not what kind of individual they are.

And when QUEER women who don't want to reproduce or who don't want to use a man to reproduce are seen as not as 'loving women', but instead as hating men.

Breeder is EXACTLY the word I wanted, and if ALL you have to say about that whole post is that I used that word, I feel like you're not into having a conversation about the actual topic. You're just looking to have an argument.

You've been nitpicking posts since I stepped into this thread this morning, and honestly, do you feel like having a conversation about the topic or having a conversation about semantics? Because I'm interested in the former, but not the latter.


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

I swear you're just looking to start an argument today. You're completely nitpicking everything today.

There is a very specific reason I used the term breeders...as in one who breeds. Not in the straight people are breeders way.

Girls are literally groomed in this country to be baby breeders and to reproduce. They're taught from the youngest age that making babies makes them 'worth something'. They're groomed to 'take care of' those babies from before they can even speak.

Yes, breeder is exactly the word I wanted. Because, there's obviously something wrong with women who don't want to or haven't had children. This same line of thinking promotes the idea that (since women are only good for sex and reproduction) that women don't have the right to choose whether or not they get pregnant/give birth.

Women are often judged on what kind of 'mothers' they are...not what kind of individual they are.

And when QUEER women who don't want to reproduce or who don't want to use a man to reproduce are seen as not as 'loving women', but instead as hating men.

Breeder is EXACTLY the word I wanted, and if ALL you have to say about that whole post is that I used that word, I feel like you're not into having a conversation about the actual topic. You're just looking to have an argument.

You've been nitpicking posts since I stepped into this thread this morning, and honestly, do you feel like having a conversation about the topic or having a conversation about semantics? Because I'm interested in the former, but not the latter.


Dylan

I didn't mean to nitpick.
I just really get my feelings hurt by that word.
Sorry. I'll go to my corner now and come back unmedicated tomorrow.
You know I love you.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I gotta say Dylan, you using the word like that is not really cool with me either. I ain't a fucking cow..

Just because it's ok in your sentences does not make it ok to go around calling it that it's offensive to those of thus who have given birth to our children.

sorry for the derail

It's also offensive to use that towards a woman, it's offensive, we have been having conversations for weeks now about offensive terms. How about you show some of that empathy to that, like we all want to any kind of term.

[Nat]

What about images of adult women who are made to look childlike?

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/05/kenzie-5.jpg

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/05/kenzie-1.jpg

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/05/image0011.jpg

[Lady Pamela]

What about images of adult women who are made to look childlike?

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/05/kenzie-5.jpg

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/05/kenzie-1.jpg

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/05/image0011.jpg



That was an awesome point.

[Soon]

The Gender ADs Project (http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/kids.htm)


Background: In recent years the disturbing images of objectified children and young people have increased in popular culture worlds, particularly in popular ads. Seductive clothing designs are very commonly marketed at young girls (Evans 1993), including a thong for babies (see #23). The Ads: In addition to the troubling images in 8 and 9, we find that adult women are infantilized, as seen in ads 3, 4, 16 and 18. One of the most disturbing ads yet, is #20-it depicts the sex tourism industry. A disturbing sets of ads is the Lee Australia campaign, using a Lolita theme (#s 32-40). A story about this campaign and its been deemed acceptable by an advertising board can be read here. Image 43 is also offensive and makes light of the major problems that all societies face in terms of the exploitation of children. Here is a good tip sheet from the Media Awareness Network related to discussing advertising with kids. Discussion Questions: (1) Why are children the subject of advertising? Is there any justifiable reason for this focus? (2) How can you explain the connection of women and their infantilization (such as in #s 3, 4, 16, 18)? (3) How can parents and concerned citizens respond to these disturbing examples of advertising?

[IrishGrrl]

oh boy.

:tea:

[waxnrope]

What about images of adult women who are made to look childlike?


Since we've had a visit from Voldemort, Nat's post reminds me of "V for Vendetta" and the pedophile cleric ... sorry for the derailment, it seems to have become de rigueur on this page.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I am uncomfortable as well with ads such as Nat posted. I am not fond of infantilism.

[CherylNYC]

I confess to having skimmed, but not thoroughly read, the majority of this thread. As has been noted, this topic can be triggering for someone with my history. If you received the JC Penny or Sears catalogue, read popular magazines, or watched television in the late 1960's through the early-mid 1970's you would have seen images of me. Yes, I have a history of childhood sexual abuse. More to the point, I have a history of childhood modeling and performance. This is a bad, bad combination.

Do pedophiles relentlessly find ways to sexualize the most innocuous images? Of course. Do I believe that the business of sexualizing children in the media fuels pedophilia? You bet. This is a chicken-and-egg problem which no one, including me, can hope to sort out well enough to protect children from those determined to do them harm. I can, however, speak with authority about the effects that my history of being professionally sexualized as a child had on me personally.

One thing that we must never forget is that the media is big business. Image making is about money making. Girls who worked as I did were hired to sell product. Print ads, commercials, movies and television shows, as well as live performance, are all very expensive to produce. Every time my agent sent me to interview or audition for any of the above there would have been plenty of money at stake for the producers/clients. I can tell you from experience that when middle-aged men line up a row of little girls and choose the prettiest one to get the job, (lesson learned: the prettiest girl always gets the most money), each girl in the room experienced repeated and profound damage. These messages are far too harsh for grown women to absorb well. Imagine how a child of 6 experiences that message, delivered with callous explicitness by men who are primarily concerned with selling product when they deliver it. Take my word for it, it's no easier to be the girl who gets the job than the girl who does not. Those of us whose self-hood had already been breached by sexual abuse were even more susceptible to injuries to our sense of self worth. The more damaged a child has been, the more susceptible they are to future abuse.

The above example is one of the most obvious ways that professional children can be injured. There are just so many varied ways for professional children to get all messed up. Kids who are making money from their image are never, EVER emotionally developed enough to escape a really bizarre kind of damage in the process. Yes, they are earning good money. The more they earn, the harder it becomes to reject the bad lessons they are learning in the process.

In case you're wondering, it was not my choice to be a professional child. It was something my mother wanted me to do. And I never saw a penny of my money. My mother took it all. So, yeah. I've been sorting out some complicated issues. It's been a long road.

I have worked like a dog to regain my equilibrium as a woman in a world that has not changed very much in terms of how girls and women are valued. The girl that best fits our culture's narrow standard of beauty most closely, still gets the most money. Men still deliver that message as callously as they did when my livelihood depended upon their judgement of my image. I'm happy to say that it has been many years since my sense of self worth hinged on the approval of others. These days I can usually refrain from expressing my desire to eviscerate men who expect me to care how they view me. It has been a looong road.

I hope that anyone who knows a parent contemplating a foray into modeling or acting for their child will discourage it. It is a very unhealthy environment.

[apretty]

i have 'toddlers and tiaras' on the dvr. i watch it (sometimes) because i can't believe that *those* kind of moms/parents are out there--and yet, the dvr is filled with them.

[AtLast]

I think Hudson makes some good points.

At the same time, I think this is a topic very much worth discussing.

I don't think sexualized images of children lead directly to pedophilia.

I do think the messages conveyed in that sort of advertising may equate to a sort of tacit societal nod in the direction of child objectification, exploitation and abuse.

Yup.... it would be a really good thing for people to do some research into what pedophilia is and is not. Also, literature about what sexualized media images of children (and adult women posed as children in a sexualized manner) do and do not contribute to pedophilia. This isn't an area without a wealth of research data. This just isn't one of those shoot from the hip subjects.

And I agree with- your statement that the messages conveyed in that sort of advertising may equate to a sort of tacit societal nod in the direction of child objectification, exploitation and abuse.

[Enchantress]

A relevant read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/magazine/13fob-wwln-t.html?WT.mc_id=MG-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-MPA-061410-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

[Soon]

A relevant read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/magazine/13fob-wwln-t.html?WT.mc_id=MG-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-MPA-061410-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

Great article--thanks, Enchantress. :)


I found this part really interesting (and sad):

In his book, “The Triple Bind: Saving Our Teenage Girls From Today’s Pressures,” Stephen Hinshaw, chairman of the psychology department at the University of California, Berkeley, explains that sexualizing little girls — whether through images, music or play — actually undermines healthy sexuality rather than promoting it. Those bootylicious grade-schoolers in the dance troupe presumably don’t understand the meaning of their motions (and thank goodness for it), but, precisely because of that, they don’t connect — and may never learn to connect — sexy attitude to erotic feelings.

[Enchantress]

“By the time they are teenagers,” she said, “the girls I talk to respond to questions about how their bodies feel — questions about sexuality or desire — by talking about how their bodies look. They will say something like, ‘I felt like I looked good.’ Looking good is not a feeling.”

And yet another reason (link to) that eating disorders are so prevalent. Not to mention body dysphoria. It all starts so very young...