Is it sick and wrong? Or a clever way to pay for your kid's college education?

[Earthworm_Jim]

*Originally posted by Freedom *
**I don’t recall going after the customers. **

Really? Let me refresh your memory:

A bunch of older men sitting around drooling over the young girls. A bunch of old men sending them clothes to wear in their next picture shoot.

I would guess that sexual predators make most people disturbed.

So this view of the customers is not condemnation of their actions on your part? This is what I’ve been on about, for the most part. You haven’t advocated arresting them, but that’s not the point I was making. You’ve formed a snap judgement about them on the basis of one user name and a few pictures. This is my point: KNEE-JERK-RESPONSE.

None of this is disputed.

On the contrary: I’m disputing it. The user profiles in the message board do seem to indicate that the average member of this Yahoo! club is a male between the ages of 25 and 40. However, you have yet to provide any reasonable proof that the average customer falls into the catagory of “older men sitting around drooling over the young girls.” So, let me recap for you,

You’ve jumped to a conclusion seemingly without any reasonable evidence.

To address your concerns:

**
Where have you been? Let me re-cap the evidence for you:

Parents taking provacative pictures of their young girls and putting them on the web. Parents charging a subscription fee to view the pictures. **

Are the pictures provocative? Obviously, just check the reaction here. That’s something of a subjective question, though, as you have to ask “Provocative in what manner?” Are the pictures intended to be sexually provocative? I guess that depends on the people you ask.
erislover seems to think that the girl in question is being deliberately provocative.
you seem to think the parents are being deliberately provocotive.
I find it questionable that anyone is being deliberatly provocative, but I don’t know.

The small sample of messages I read at the message board didn’t seem to indicate that they felt it was exceptionally provocative. Really.

Or is it the selling that you oppose, as that’s where you put the emphasis in the second sentence?

Are you really unable to stand up and say that this is wrong? Are so afraid to judge an action?

CHILD MOLESTATION IS WRONG

I don’t like to fly off the handle about it. In this case, I don’t have enough information to form a judgement. I’m not unable to stand up and say this is wrong, I’m unwilling to do so, at least without further information.

Sure, child molestation is wrong, but I don’t see it here. I see stupid parents, but I don’t see child molestation. I see a business that I find questionable, but I don’t see child molestation. I see discomforting associations, but I don’t see molestation. You claim this is willful blindness on my part. Yet I can not and will not support your position without further, more concrete, evidence. I think the amount of damage you would do to all involved by forcibly removing the child from her home is not worth the theoretical advantages.

What you’ve got here is a number of parties participating in an activity to which all have consented, that gets mighty close to the border of legal (and, incidentally, morally acceptable) behavior. Questionable? Yes. Discomforting? Yes. Absolutely wrong and parents must be jailed while children become wards of the state? No.

[Freedom]

So this view of the customers is not condemnation of their actions on your part? This is what I’ve been on about, for the most part.

Are you on crack? Are you a mind reader? I just need to know how you knew I was going to make those comments before I even made them.

You see…If this is what you have “been on about,” then I’m dying to know why you were going on and on before I even made the comment. Try throwing out some examples made PRIOR to your question.

There is no way to read my posts in this thread and not see that my focus is on the parents.

Do I think that the customers are sick fucks? Sure I do, but the brunt of this responsibility lies squarely with the parents.

I must have missed the copious amounts of evidence pointing to these girls having sex or engaging in an otherwise sexual activity.

Did you miss the pictures? Go back and click through the picture links and you will see sexual activity.

4 is just as irrelevant to the case of pedophilia that you are clearly levelling here as the main thrust of your attack.

No it’s not. Older men dressing a girl in clothes that they want to see her in is obviously a part of their sexual fantasy. They are not just sending her gifts, they are sending her clothes so that they can see the girl dressed the way they prefer.

I’m not in any way convinced her (their) behavior is even sexually explicit.

Are the pictures intended to be sexually provocative?

Click on this link and tell me she is not acting sexual:

http://www.tiffany-teen-model.com/
That girl is 13.

What you’ve got here is a number of parties participating in an activity to which all have consented, that gets mighty close to the border of legal (and, incidentally, morally acceptable) behavior.

Once again…

The girls are too young to consent.

There is no such thing as a consenting child porn-star.

[erislover]

Quoth Freedom
Click on this link and tell me she is not acting sexual.

I remain unconvinced. It is certainly ambiguous. I can certainly admit that someone looking for girls acting sexual might find evidence of that here. Had I simply come across such a picture in a magazine ad I wouldn’t think twice about it. Coming across it in a website certainly does add an additional degree of skepticism IMO, especially a pay website.

Perhaps it is encouraging people who are either pedophiles or are severe anti-pedophiles to see something there. Coming into the situation with no opinion and looking at those pictures… eh, doesn’t really do much for me. Taking the background information into account still doesn’t do much for me. I’ve seen a million little girls at the beach wearing bikinis. Were they sometimes in lewd positions? Sure. It is bound to happen when a person is moving around.

Are these pictures deliberately being lewd? It is possible, but I wouldn’t call it “likely.” There is a line here somewhere, and I would think this affair is dancing right on it. For such a sensitive topic it is definitely a dangerous place to be.

However, I remain firm in the general opinion that just because some idiot falls out of a window companies shouldn’t be obligated to put warning stickers on screens. In a similar vein, the girl is definitely doing stuff she would be able to do in public. Her medium leaves a little to be desired, and that there is cash involved does make one wonder. But I am certainly not going to judge the intention of the girl, or her parents based on the people that choose to associate with it. That seems like a seperate issue. IMO they are in compliance with the law and there is no harm being done.

I will say, though, that the one quote of the mother saying “Don’t be so obvious” is very intriguing. It can still be explained without resorting to some parental conspiracy. Until I see the girl grabbing her breasts or otherwise fondling herself, riding something in a sexual position, etc, I’m sticking to my opinion. I don’t doubt that millions of parents’ daughters are in such positions in similar gear all over the house and no one notices a thing because they aren’t looking for it. And rightly so.

[Freedom]

I don’t doubt that millions of parents’ daughters are in such positions in similar gear all over the house and no one notices a thing because they aren’t looking for it. And rightly so.

Or maybe no one notices it because it isn’t being advertised and sold as a product.

[wring]

I don’t know about the chat room behavior of c/m. I can give you a window on some of the explanations that I’ve personally heard:
“She’d been molested by some one else before, so… and besides, her parents didn’t mind”
“It was consensual” (his 10 year old daughter)
“It was all a misunderstanding” -then a long explanation of how/why that ended up with this child’s head in his naked lap.

I think it’s clear that the parents involved have a idea who their market is, after all:

1. It’s a pay per view site, which is more likely to be an adult vs. a child.

2. They’re getting responses of offers for clothing for the child to wear, and the clothing involved is not what one would wear to church, school etc. but rather beach wear etc. (yes, still in public, but warm weather casual - no ski outfits, nothing one would wear to go shopping at the mall in fact).

3. The clothing and poses that they themselves have chosen indicate a tacit understanding the allure and interest. FOr example, the child is not posed in blue jeans and t shirt while reading a book.

4. The ‘who else’ argument, for me, is persuasive. I believe I have the most handsome child in the world and that my neices are the cutest girls in the world, and I’ve even posted some pics of them on web sites. But I’m not under any delusion at all that as good looking and wonderful as they might be, they are also of very little interest to people in general, and certainly not enough interest to pay for repeatedly.

To pretend, after all of the above that they don’t ‘know’ what their customers are looking for is silly. Especially when they find it necessary to spell out what they have in their agreements.

I understand the point being made that the child involved is not being physically touched. But does that mean they are not being harmed by this?

Would I feel harmed if after the fact, I found that I’d been used, and by the people who are charged with protecting me from harm? hmmm. e-yup. The level of involvement of the parents reminds me of the first explanation of the c/m listed above (‘and besides her parents didn’t care’).

Now, do I think that upon viewing this sort of stuff the c/m is more likely to go and harm some one else? I don’t know. But I do know that if the person is in treatment or under any kind of supervision, this sort of thing would be in violation of those goals. And, to that extent, I’d believe that it would at the very least not discourage a pedophile (assuming there may be at least one or two people viewing that site who aren’t)

[Arnold_Winkelried]

*Originally posted by erislover *
In a similar vein, the girl is definitely doing stuff she would be able to do in public.

Actually I would dispute that assertion. In the “Tiffany” video for sale I see pictures of two thirteen-year-olds in thong underwear “romping” around the room, and some of the shots seem arranged to make it look like one of the girls is topless. Would this be acceptable “in public”? Only in certain circumstances (e.g. at the beach).
erislover, allow me to return the favour and ask you a few questions. Would you encourage your 12-year-old daughter to sell pictures of herself playing around in a thong bikini to help pay for her college education? If your 11-year-old asked “can I sell pictures of myself in a swimsuit over the internet to make money”, would you allow her to do so? At what age does this become permissible? At what age would you urge someone to do so?

[Arnold_Winkelried]

*Originally posted by Beelzebubba *
Perhaps I’m biased as I’m a parent, but I find it difficult to believe that any parent would knowingly and “covertly” sell their child’s images to those who would view them in a sexual light, and I find it difficult to believe that these business would do so (apparently) well on “child-molester” business alone.

I have spoken many times with the founder of the organization Captive Daughters, which deals with the sexual trafficking of young women. Some of the points she’s made:

• some of the young children (pre-teenage years) sold into prostitution (e.g. in Thailand or in Vietnam) are sold by their own parents, who have decided that they need the money.
• private companies organize profitable “sex tours” to Asia with the explicit promise that the travellers will be able to have sex with young children.

So I don’t share your surprise. I’m sure many parents would think “why do I care if someone masturbates to a picture of my child? It doesn’t hurt us and it doesn’t hurt them.”

[tracer]

Freedom wrote:

What if our current stance on pedophilic feelings turns out to be equally mistaken?

You might as well throw out the word pedophilic and replace it with murder, rape, theft or assualt.

Would you mind explaining how you would justify ANY law since you are afraid that later on we might find out we made a mistake?

I wasn’t speaking about pedophilic acts, just pedophilic feelings. (And, by extension, actions based on those feelings done in private, without actual children.)

Have you ever felt like you wanted to murder someone? You probably have. Have you ever hit and kicked you bed or pillow or a punching bag and pretended it was someone you wanted to kill? You may or may not have done so, but I and many others have. Should you be condemned for those feelings and actions? Does punching a punching bag and pretending it’s Joe Smith mean that you’re likely to go out and murder Joe Smith? Does punching a punching bag and pretending it’s Joe Smith mean you’re a sick, twisted fuck who’s a threat to society and ought to be locked up or undergo psychological counseling? If everyone knew that you punched a a punching bag and pretended it’s Joe Smith justify everyone having a knee-jerk reaction against you as a murderphile who creeps them out?

No. Of course not. Just because you feel like killing someone doesn’t mean you’re going to do it, and everyone knows this.

But that’s exactly the way that people with pedophilic feelings, or who have pedophilic fantasies in private, are treated. They’re all a threat. They deserve immediate scorn and outrage. And anyone who doesn’t agree with that assessment is aiding and abetting these “sick bastards.”

Right now, I’ll bet some of you reading this (Milossairan?) are feeling hot-under-the-collar by what I just said, and are itching to show me just how wrong I am. Before you respond, ask yourself: Why do you feel such a strong emotional response when it comes to this subject? Why does it send your gorge rising, thereby eliminating any chance you might have of having a cool-headed debate on this topic? Are you, perhaps, guilty of … a knee-jerk reaction?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried *
[quoe]In the “Tiffany” video for sale I see pictures of two thirteen-year-olds in thong underwear “romping” around the room, and some of the shots seem arranged to make it look like one of the girls is topless. Would this be acceptable “in public”? Only in certain circumstances (e.g. at the beach).

Exactly. Well, really, all over the place though he clothing is most likely beach-specific. I know I go crazy for the younger girls (late teens) at malls. Many certainly dress themselves with lasciviousness in mind.

Would you encourage your 12-year-old daughter to sell pictures of herself playing around in a thong bikini to help pay for her college education?

Probably not. Though I do have pretty liberal views on sexuality, and especially the sexuality of youth, I can say firmly that I wouldn’t expressly allow my daughter, had I one, to do such a thing. In fact, I wouldn’t allow her to do such a thing for the exact reasons the protesters are mentioning: it definitely caters to pedophiles. While I may support pedophilia in certain cases (as previous debates gave light to) that doesn’t imply I want it in my house. The fact that the one mom seems to know she is, in fact, catering to pedophiles is a little off IMO, but I’d rather reserve judgement on the matter. I would probably allow my daughter to do it by the time she reached high school, however, as by that age it is a little late to coddle them sexually (IMO). I would certainly let her know that there is a 100% chance that some pretty dubious characters are going to be drooling over her, and does she think she really wants that.

I would never urge someone to do so unless they displayed some interest in it in the first place, no matter the age.

[wring]

tracer let me point out to you that feelings are different than actions. That some one seeking out pictures and sending clothing to enhance their enjoyment of those pictures are in fact acting on their feelings, not just fantasizing. Now, I will concede that sending clothing isn’t even at all the same as sexual abuse, but, if the person were in a treatment setting for example, it would be seen as a ‘slip’.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

erislover, how do you reconcile the statements “I wouldn’t allow my daughter to do it” and “IMO they are in compliance with the law and there is no harm being done.”

If no harm is being done, why forbid your daughter to do it?

[capacitor]

This is a shame, such a shame. By questioning the motivation of ‘perverts’ procuring the photos, we have become inundated to think like perverts when it comes to any child photo, nude or not. We should look at ourselves and ask: how it has arrived to this?

[wring]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**This is a shame, such a shame. By questioning the motivation of ‘perverts’ procuring the photos, we have become inundated to think like perverts when it comes to any child photo, nude or not. We should look at ourselves and ask: how it has arrived to this? **

I disagree. We seem to be focused in on the motivation of the parent, and are looking at how the parent is marketing this. Look again at the mothers terse comment to ‘not be so obvious’. This isn’t (IMHO) a case of some one taking a candid pic of their child in the bathtub and some one else coming along and attempting to read something into it.

the ‘something’ is being placed there artfully and consciously by the parent by selecting the clothing, the poses etc and the marketing plan.

[even_sven]

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking. At first I was leaning towards the disturbed side. These children are being used in a sexual way, and to use someone who is not your equal in a sexual manner is wrong.

But then, I thought about myself. As erislover said, it is not like kids are completely asexual. A few months back there was a GQ thread regrading when women got their first orgasims. To the shock of a lot of the males in the thread, answers like “four or five years old” were not all that uncommon. There is a reason that kids masturbate so much. Do you think they just stop when you don’t see it? Nope, they just get better at hiding it. Once again this does not make sexual molestation okay. There are too much cultural and social wierdness with sex for adult-child sexual contact to be okay. But, I would venture to say that in a different cultural context it could be. For example, was ancient Greece full of sickos and their hopelessly screwed up victems, or simply people existing in a different set of sexual norms?

What is the point of all this? The point is that while there is nothing inherently evil about childrens sexuality, it is wrong in the context of our society. In todays world an eleven year old cannot consent to sexual contact. But there is not sexual contact. There is at best light teaseing, which I believe is something an eleven year old can consent to. At that age, I certainly knew what I was doing when I put on a pair of short shorts. While that does not give anyone an excuse to abuse me, I do not think they were out of line for looking.

We are all assumeing Lil’Amber is going to end up scarred by this. Why that assumption? She will not have to deal with socially unacceptable reprecussions(eg. lost virginity, “feeling dirty”, STDs) As she grows up she will probably have an easy time seperating this somewhat sexual playfullness with the reality of sexual contact. She certainly seems like a sociable and vivacious child that is able to understand what is happening here and will be able to handle it in the future.

Beyond that, she will have a few bucks in her pocket, which is more than I ever got out of my childhood.

[even_sven]

*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried *
**erislover, how do you reconcile the statements “I wouldn’t allow my daughter to do it” and “IMO they are in compliance with the law and there is no harm being done.”

If no harm is being done, why forbid your daughter to do it? **

Dude, Arnold, I would not allow my daughter to ride a motorcycle, even though I know that they can be operated with minimal risk and they are in full compliance with the law. I would not allow my daughter to go to a fundy vacation bible school, although they are in complience to the law and do not hurt people. Heck, I probably wouldn’t allow my daughter to watch a lot of TV, although that does not real harm and it perfectly legal.

Every kid is raised in a different environment and people that are close to that particular kid may choose not to allow that kid to do certain things, despite the fact that those things are legal and not generally harmful.

[wring]

even sven can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m aware of and don’t have a problem with children w/their own sexuality. Where I’m having a problem with it is the parent, who should be protecting their interest, is exploiting the child’s sexuality for profit, specifically targeting those who may wish to act on those desires. The child in this case, because they are a child, cannot consent to this.

(and parenthetically, from what I’ve seen of your posting lately, and this is said with care and concern, please, you’ve mentioned sadness connected with your childhood several times, and other hints along the way, I am hopeful that you have access to some one to talk to about this - a counselor or close friend?)

[Arnold_Winkelried]

*Originally posted by even sven *
Dude, Arnold, I would not allow my daughter to ride a motorcycle, even though I know that they can be operated with minimal risk and they are in full compliance with the law. I would not allow my daughter to go to a fundy vacation bible school, although they are in complience to the law and do not hurt people. Heck, I probably wouldn’t allow my daughter to watch a lot of TV, although that does not real harm and it perfectly legal.

If there is no chance of harm, why would you disallow your daughter to do any of those things?
My comment on your three examples (the Arnold Winkelried point of view):
a) I wouldn’t allow my daughter to ride a motorcycle until she had the necessary skills to do so because there is harm - it’s much more dangerous than other equally accessible forms of travel.
b) I wouldn’t allow my daughter to go to a fundy vacation bible school because there is harm - she might learn to be narrow-minded and bigoted; she might learn to distrust the rational examination of data to arrive at a conclusion.
c) I wouldn’t allow my daughter to watch a lot of TV because there is harm - most television programming is not geared to elevate the intelligence of the audience, or encourage the audience to do critical thinking.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by wring *
Where I’m having a problem with it is the parent, who should be protecting their interest, is exploiting the child’s sexuality for profit, specifically targeting those who may wish to act on those desires.

I think that is speculative at best. We don’t know where the money from this site ends up, or how much goes to the girl. Apart from that, I believe laws would forbid the girl to go into business on her own.

[erislover]

Arnold, the idea is that my personal opinion on a girl (who i am responsible for) and her sexuality is not necessarily applicable to all girls everywhere.

I don’t see anything wrong with it in the general case. I would prefer not to partake in such a thing.

[wring]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**

*Originally posted by wring *
Where I’m having a problem with it is the parent, who should be protecting their interest, is exploiting the child’s sexuality for profit, specifically targeting those who may wish to act on those desires.

I think that is speculative at best. We don’t know where the money from this site ends up, or how much goes to the girl. Apart from that, I believe laws would forbid the girl to go into business on her own. **

Speculation? nope. They are most definately profiting. They are most definately exploiting their child’s sexuality to do so. Now, what I haven’t done is to suggest what they’re doing with the money. It may all be going to the college fund - I dunno. don’t particularly care, either, since I’m not in the habit of believing that the ends justify any and all means. (and parenthetically, what they’ve said they’re doing is so that they ‘don’t have to go into debt to pay for their child’s education’. )