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.

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.

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

(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.

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

:|

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.

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...1130-k178.html
(i guess dylan didn't read this)

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Ped...e_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.

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.).

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

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

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.

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

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.

See my edit oh Relevance Avenger.

Snort,
Adele

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.

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!"

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.