Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?

[Bob]

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Bob

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]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

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]

Originally Posted by Dylan

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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?

[Lady Pamela]

Originally Posted by Nat

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

That was an awesome point.

[Soon]

The Gender ADs Project


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.

[waxnrope]

Originally Posted by Nat

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/ma...WT.mc_ev=click