Since we’re not debating anymore but throwing around assumptions and generalizations, there shouldn’t be any harm in giving a brief summary of exaggeratiosn. Funny, why did I get called on it?
PAGE 1
[li]MGibson- “I would feel very uncomfortable if someone was trying to take ‘sexy’ pictures of my 11 year old daughter.” Though sexy warrants quotes to show that it is truly a matter of perspective, he follows it up with, “Do you really think it is appropriate to use a child to sell sex?” Don’t you think that implies your view of the matter is a bit more universal that in it would otherwise be, normally? Or, instead, perhaps you meant to put the word “sex” in quotes.[/li][li]Badtz noted, “Going back through the bulletin board I saw the mother responding to a since-deleted post, telling the guy to not be so ‘obvious’ and to stop using foul language since the girl reads the site herself.” Oh, the girl reads it? I’ll keep that in mind whenever someone says the girl doesn’t know what’s going on.[/li][li]Bad News Baboon said “if [the mother] doesn’t realize what is going on, she is seriously delusional.” read what I just cited from badtz.[/li][li]Badtz says again, “The harm will come when the children get old enough to realize why people were buying videotapes of them dancing around in their underwear - they will figure it out eventually, you can count on it.” Oh, like when they read the quote you cited which shows that they read the fucking message boards?[/li][li]MGibson said, “I might be strange but I don’t think it is right to sexualize young children.” Don’t you mean “sexualize”? (I would like to note that Marc has really been clarifying this is his personal opinion, though, to be fair)[/li][li]Jess said “Well, to me the creepiest thing about these cites was the willingness of the children’s parents to exploit them this way for money.” I think exploit is a very excessive word to use here. It assumes that the child is factually unaware of what they are doing.[/li][li]Jess also said, “Nor do I take much stock in the whole ‘it’s for her college fund’ thing.” It isn’t, so good thing you don’t take stock in it.[/li][li]Rachelle said “The parents are exploiting their own children to make a quick and easy buck and they’re not thinking about the long term effects this is going to have on their children.” Exploiting is not factually represented by the data we have. You also do not know what the parents are thinking, and what the daughter knows.[/li][li]Freedom said, “Maybe the mother could sell her daughter into a year of sexual servitude in Sudan when she hits 16.” Maybe you are allowing a sensitive topic to get the better of an otherwise rational mind. There is no indication of a hint of sexual servitude.[/li][li]Freedom then posts later, “This is a pure violation of the parent-child relationship and an abuse of the child.” This is speculative at best, and assumes, on a number of levels, intent of the parents and the child.[/li][li]Enderw24 said, “Their parents should know better and the child can’t consent to this type of activity.” this comment was made after trying to establish a correlation between statutory rape and flirty photos. A girl can certainly, knowingly, flirt. Legally, even. This analogy is not apt.[/li][li]Texas Spur said, “Why the hell do they even make thongs for kids that young?” Well, Tex, because the market for PuritanGear fell out after the Salem Witch Trials. At some level we have to assume that a 13 year old girl, who can certainly clothe herself, probably also has an opinion on what she wants to wear and for what reasons.[/li][li]wring mentions, “I don’t see the same level of involvement at selling/marketing to folks who are apparently seeking out thong bikinis to send to the kids.” Like, oh the clothing manufacturers?[/li][li]Freedom pops in again to say, “It is parents selling their children for sexual purposes.” No, it is parents helping the daughter do something she most likely consented to, making a profit off it, and sharing those profits with the daughter. The parents are not having sex with the child, getting sexual favors because of the child, etc.[/li][li]Freedom also posts, “I can only imagine the problems she is going to have when her fantasy world comes crashing down.” Crashing down…how, exactly? When she realizes she doesn’t actually have fans? When she finds out people aren’t actually paying to see her dress up?[/li][li]Freedom goes on to say, “What do you do when you think that you are the shit, and everyone loves you, and then one day you find out that all your fans were pedophiles jerking off behind a computer? To top it all off, it was your own parents that sold you down the river?” What makes you think she isn’t aware of the situation?[/li]Page 2
[li]Milo says, “A young child can’t possibly make decisions for him/herself along these lines. Show me one that appears to be mature enough to do so, and I’ll show you one whose sexuality was formed by impositions upon them by adults.” Like their teachers in sexual education courses? I suppose that constitutes Contributing to the Delinquincy of a Minor.[/li][li]Freedom, whose name is begging to have a ring of irony to it, says, “You might as well throw out the word pedophilic and replace it with murder, rape, theft or assualt.” This presupposes that a child cannot have sex without it being a traumatic experience. I think this is demonstratably not true, and it would be even more clear if I could have captured my mind and shared it explicitly with you when I was her age. It also presupposes that finding young girls attractive is also, in itself, a bad thing. I think this borders on religious conviction.[/li][li]Freedom continues, “Has anyone on this thread ever heard of the age of consent?” I most certainly have. And were she giving oral sex, posing naked with various devices shoved in and about her orafices, or performing a sexual act with another person or thing in general I would agree that this is, if not wrong, then at least illegal. That not being the case, your comment is not proper to the debate.[/li][li]Freedom responds to being asked what’s wrong and who the predator is, “I guess it’s the 11 yr. old girl dressing up as a little tease.” I find that girls dress up that way in many different locations; at birthday parties, at school, on the beach, etc etc etc. What have you noticed?[/li][li]Freedom then makes the logical leap, “CHILD MOLESTATION IS WRONG.” Good. Then I’m glad that isn’t what is happening here.[/li][li]Freedom then mentions in a later post “There is no such thing as a consenting child porn-star.” That may very well be. Good thing this girl isn’t in the pornography industry.[/li][li]Freedom characteristicly misses the intention of children in regular advertising with his response, “Or maybe no one notices it because it isn’t being advertised and sold as a product.”[/li][li]Wring mentions, “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.” Yes, I’m sure the daughter has no idea why that silly man takes these pictures and where all these clothes come from. Must be Gerber or something. And thankfully we can also put her reading comprehension to zero since she, if fact, reads the message boards. :rolleyes:[/li][li]wring mentions, “the ‘something’ is being placed there artfully and consciously by the parent by selecting the clothing, the poses etc and the marketing plan.” Good thing, too, because even some of 25+ year olds don’t have a grasp on marketing. Why, people major in that in college. I suoppose for a child to truly consent she must also possess the ability to market, design web pages, purchase cameras, etc etc?[/li][li]Wring mentions to even sven (my new hero), “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.” Exploiting is not rigorously or even mostly founded on the evidence at hand. This has been mentioned. Secondly, the child’s sexuality is promoted by the child herself in school, unless we are then to presuppose that she isn’t interested in boys and doesn’t like to flirt. That has not been presupposed explicitly. Instead, what has been mentioned is that a girl who flirts in ornder to gain admiration and attention has no idea what she’s doing when she flirts because she gains admiration and attention. I hope we can see the fallacy there.[/li][li]wring then mentions, “They are most definately profiting. They are most definately exploiting their child’s sexuality to do so.” Profiting, agreed. Exploitation is still getting my goat. I do not see that anyone has actually supported that claim.[/li][li]Freedom me-toos then posts, “It just goes to show how hard it is to draw generalizations about ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals.’” It is certainly easy, however, to draw other generalizations, especially when it involves ignoring or making up facts.[/li][li]Freedom then posts a telling comment, “In the excerpted statement form the Amber_tech guy, he says that Amber loves to get online and interact with the ‘fans.’ In fact, he says that she considers them her ‘toys.’” You mean she interacts with these people, reads their posts on a message board, wears flirty clothing, and still has no idea what she is doing?[/li][li]freedom mentions, “The thing that kills me is the parents selling their children for the sexual gratification of pedophiles.” Well, then you’ve no reason to be offended. This isn’t happening. What is happening, so you don’t continue to distort the facts, is that a girl is playing dress up in flirty outfits. Pictures of this affair are taken. These pictures are sold. We suppse, quite rightly, that pedophiles are buying these pictures with intent to use them as a sexual aide. In other words, to summarize so no distortions are taken of this either, a girl is doing something legal. Someone else is doing something illegal. Visit your local head shop and ponder the situation.[/li]Page 3
[li]Badtz returns to the fray to mention, “The harm done is that the parent is selling the child’s image without their informed consent, for an intended purpose that most people would not approve of if they understood.” At what point did you ignore all the evidence that the girl knows what is going on to make this comment?[/li][li]Cranky then misses my poetic license and states, “And don’t forget to pick up some gross exaggerations on your way out the door, erislover!” I didn’t. I hope you’ve enjoyed them. For a rational set of responses you might care to read mine, matt_mcl’s, Dijon’s, most of MGibsons provided you understand he is always expressing his opinion on the matter and not stating general rules of behavior, some of stoid’s, belzebubba’s, and Arnold’s. Some of us even manage to disagree without excessive or irrational speculation.[/li][li]Freedom then misses a link required by his own argument, “Your assertion that I can’t be angry at the parents without condemming the pedophiles is ridiculous.” Your reason to be angry at the parents is because they are selling the images, by your assertation, to pedophiles. If there were no pedophiles, by your logic, there would be no market, and the parents could not sell these images. It is not a ridiclulous assertion on his part.[/li][li]Guin most recently posted, “I have to wonder-couldn’t some of these customers take the girl’s pictures, and digitally manipulate, edit and fix them so that the girl appears nude, and then sell them?” Yes. What has that got to do with anything?[/li]
Have a fun mudsling, guys. I’ll stick to a debate.