IS THERE EVEN ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD WHO SERIOUSLY BELIEVES THERE ARE NO PEDOPHILES AS SUBSCRIBERS?
I submit that some are; the problem is that you think that anybody who likes the sites being debated are child molesters or would-be child molesters.
So, a final solution.
One, the site is free.
Two, she sells the clothing she is modelling.
Problems now?
For the benefit of those who missed it… there are, without any doubt, many people with sexual attractions towards children ** who never, ever even come close to acting out their feelings in even the tiniest manner. **.
So can we stop equating all pedophiles with child molesters? That is grossly unfair. See my previous posts about this if you don’t get it.
stoid
PS: Erislover, could I get this much agreement from you: that in America, in the modern culture and society, it is virtually certain to be unhealthy for adults and children to have sex? For whatever reason, it just is? Because if you can’t concede that much, I will be very disturbed and sad. I can completely accept that in very different cultures and times, sexual interaction between adults and children can be fine. Have been fine, are fine. But not here and now. Please? You are bumming me out…
semantics?
you seem to be drawing a distinction between pedophile and child molester. Are you? I have been using c/m as a person who seeks out children as sex objects. You also seem to be drawing a distinctions between some one who may have those feelings, may look at pictures only, may look at pictures and attempt flirty conversations with children, may look at pictures, attempt flirty conversations and may engage in sexual relations with children.
It would be my position that some one who may have sexual feelings towards children should not act on them, that parents of children should make real attempts to protect their children from having adults engage in sexual relations with them. If you don’t agree with these, then I won’t bother w/ this. It’s simply not interesting to me to ‘debate’ that level of minutia.
Those who have sexual feelings for children and wish to not act on them, (for whatever reason -either they see it as doing harm or they fear repercussions), in order to assist them in not doing actions should be in therapy. And, as part of their therapy, they would be strongly discouraged from the sort of behavior described here. I’ve spoken about this in many other threads on child molesters.
your point about ‘gee, they’re dressing the same, it’s just the background that’s different’ - strikes me as particularly disingenuous the old “if things were different then they wouldn’t be the same” arguement. A bathing suit plus thigh highs are not worn together typically.
RTFirefly wrote:
<hijack>
Oh, if only the vendors of those pure trust scams would take this to heart!
</hijack>
You are correct. I have a pretty hard time thinking of a nice situation in today’s society. Too much of a hang up on sex.
wring
I feel I must if I am intellectually honest.
I feel I must if I am intellectually honest.
Minutia? WTF is that? I agree that they should, yes. I believe that these parents are not letting their daughter have sex with older men. I believe that distinction is not minutia. There is a very large difference between posting non-naked pics on the internet and letting her have sex. Frankly, that you consider this difference to be minute is telling of why this conversation is so difficult.
I find this opinion to be the equivalent of a moral lobotomy, and equally offensive. I don’t feel that pedophiles, or people attracted to younger persons in general, are sick as a rule. If they feel that it would take therapy to not act then of course I agree. Otherwise, no, I don’t agree.
I’m just trying to find out what this group would have to do to satisfy your religious-like conviction on the matter.
It is my opinion that changing the background, selling clothes instead of memberships, etc, wouldn’t actually change the situation at all. And would be just as legal. And should be.
[/hijack]
hehehehehe…
It’s funny how the net can distort personalities. That post is so funny that I’m going to have show it to y friends.
As for the 11 yr. old…
No eleven year should be thrown in jail for life no matter what crime they commit. I don’t support the death penalty. I’m not really an expert on rehabilitation, so I don’t know what I would want to happen to an 11 yr. old killer.
I do know that I thought the plea bargin offered for the kid in Florida who killed his sister while wrestling seemed reasonable to me.
While we are talking about law enforcement…
I think the criminal justice system and the war on drugs are discriminatory against minorities and the poor. I support legalizing ALL drugs. I think traffic check points are unconstitutional. I hate racial profiling, and think most car searches are racialy motivated. I despise no-knock raids.
I’m not quite sure what the definition of a “law and order guy” is, but I doubt I fit the bill.
[/hijack]
If it is the actual clothing, then I think it may be even worse.
How about…
We leave real, existing children out of the equation altogether.
“Funny, why did I get called on it?”
Well, friend, because you were the first to stomp out in exasperation. A comment about how now that you’re leaving the debate, everyone will just blather on without facts… well, it didn’t give me the warm fuzzies to say the least.
I didn’t miss your intended irony. It’s just the way your comment hit me.
And, FWIW, I addressed a few other assumptions earlier in this discussion, when I didn’t think others had covered them. Just to say, I’m not ignoring other things in the debate that hit me funny.
I’m glad you’re back since you clearly have some ideas about the issues involved, although I’m sorry I goaded you into it.
Fine. You start up the petition to end child modeling and let’s get this going. Which company should we start with? KMart? The GAP? The kiddie stores at malls?
Incidentally, if you really didn’t like young modeling you probably could have made a point without even resorting to the specific issues of this thread, and definitely without bringing up child molestation and pornography.
Dear Cranky:
Regards,
erl
I personally have my doubts that the girls know about the fan sites, and if they do I’m sure that their parents screen the posts they look at fairly thoroughly. If you have read the boards, none of the posts on the forum are sexually explicit, those that are made are apparently deleted rapidly. Self-interest would make sure that both the producers of the pay websites and videos and the maintainers of the websites would do everything they could to distance themselves from what this basically is. Read the posts that are allowed to remain, it’s the kind of stuff a young girl with an interest in modelling would eat up, praise of how cute she is in various outfits and what a sweet girl she seems to be. There may in fact be some subscribers to the site who have some kind of unusually strong non-sexual interest in children, but it’s fairly obvious that at least a portion of the market consists of pedophiles, and that the parents are aware of it, at least in the one case I mentioned.
e-lover you seem comforted by the idea that the parents are apparently not allowing the child to have sexual contact with these adults.
For me, I’m not willing to praise a parent for that - that should be a given - by the same token, I wouldn’t praise a parent for feeding/clothing/sheltering their child = these, too, are minimum standards.
My point is by this entire thing - of urging her to play dress up, in the poses, in the outfits etc (and don’t pretend to believe that stock modeling of children’s clothing is done in outfits and poses together that are similar to these), they have groomed her to be the perfect victim. Think about it. a child molester normally would have to groom and flirt for quite a while to coax a young person to dress and pose like this. These parents have done all the work for them. AND led her to believe that it’s a safe activity, since mom and dad know all about it and even let her post messages to board.
One of the best protections a kid has (against a real life c/m) is the sense that the person is having them do something ‘ooky’, not ok, weird. This little girl (and yes, frankly I think the Ramseys did the same thing) is already predisposed to think this behavior is normal, fine and perfectly safe. It isn’t safe.
Yes.
[/quote]
For me, I’m not willing to praise a parent for that - that should be a given - by the same token, I wouldn’t praise a parent for feeding/clothing/sheltering their child = these, too, are minimum standards.
[/quote]
I’m not praising them. I am attempting to ease the level of condemnation towards them.
You know, I find this argument almost convincing, except that there are other ways to groom the perfect victim. Instilling an unreasonable amount of trust through naivety in a child is also an act of contempt. However, I don’t feel that the parents cannot, now, instill in their child a sense of how to interact with people. Don’t talk to strangers in person, don’t give out your phone number, etc etc. This experience does not run counter to those tried-and-true methods of protecting a child.
Quite honestly, I think it is a safe activity, provided the aprents do what they are doing: keeping an active presence there.
It most certainly is safe in safe contexts. Really, the standard context of not talking to strangers and not behaving certain ways when not around your parents and so forth is easy to instill in a child (whether or not they listen, of course, is another thing).
I think the parents have, from what I have seen, made this a safe behavior for their daughter. Their active viewing of the message boards and such surely indicate their awareness of what could go wrong. It is not possible to tell whether or not they do such things out of fear of legal repricussion or an actual sense of keeping their daughter out of contact with brazen pedophiles. I, for one, am really assuming both because I have seen no indication of dangerous behavior.
At some level we really must let parents raise their own children–if even for economically pragmatic reasons–and we must let them raise those children according to their own beliefs, provided they stay within a very loose framework of tolerable behavior. These parents are doing that, IMO, and it takes (imo again) an overly cynical and perhaps paranoid mind to piece together what little information we have and jump to the conclusion that these parents are, perhaps even willfully and deliberately, prepping their child to interact with actual molesters in real life. The path to teaching a child how to interact with real people involves laying many, many stones. This behavior, in and of itself, does not seem to run counter to most or even possibly any of them.
Why? because they aren’t doing the absolute worst? So what? They’re behaving poorly to their child.
** bah. Again, because they aren’t committing every single bad act, you’re unwilling to make a stand that their actions as described are wrong? It’s not necessary for them to be 100% wrong in every way for others to say “they’re not behaving as good parents”, and be accurate in that assessment.
And, your assesment of how to protect kids from molesters is inaccurate. Most data shows molesters often to be people they know and trust, therefore all of the stuff about ‘strangers’ etc. is useless. The point is, they’ve already reduced her defenses. She now sees some one complimenting her on her taste in clothes, buying skimpy clothes for her, encouraging her to put them on and pose for them, all as good things, normal things, things that lead to positive results. So, if ‘uncle bob’ or her teacher at school starts suggesting these things, she will see it as a positive thing with probable positive outcomes, certainly nothing out of the ordinary to bring to mom and dad’s attention. And why should she think the parents have to be there for it to be ok? You’re assuming an awful lot here. The damage is real and it’s been done. You apparently do see that at least as a possability.
Let me ask you directly - under what conditions would you consider calling some one a bad parent?
** NO. in the first place, it isn’t the strangers. In the second, the ‘when the parents are there’ is nonsense. The parent isn’t there most of the time (at school for example, or when they’re visiting friends) and we damn near always say stuff like ‘listen to your teacher’ etc. So, this ‘ookieness’ thing is really very important since moleseter are often folks that not only the child trusts, but so does the parent.
** and I heartily disagree. It is not safe behavior for their daughter, they may attempt to screen out and protect her from what they know are the dangers (if they’re screening this they are certainly aware of the dangers and probabilities), but by allowing some of it through to her, they’ve given tacit approval of these contacts. And, again, have set her up to believe that it’s perfectly normal and ok for adult males to purchase skimpy clothing for her to pose in for them.
** I agree.
** I strongly disagree.
** I don’t necessarily think that they are willfully and intentionally prepping her for interaction. I believe they are willfully ignoring the potentional and inherant dangers, 'cause the $$ are in their eyes. I believe they know that the market is peodophiles, that child molesters also would be interested in personally interacting with their child, and that they erroneously believe that they can adequately protect their child from that possability given they’ve already identified her, made her (on line) available, and IRL gotten her to accept posing in skimpy outfits in provocative poses for adult males.
The latter comment is correct. I do not describe their actions as wrong. There is potential that this is a wrong action if handled incorrectly. I do not know how they are handling, quite frankly. I think that, because they are being proactive in some sense to keep obviously illegal activity and what is–in most people’s minds–immoral behavior from occurring that they are, probably, being proactive in other ways.
Well, it was a gloss over. This will certainly protect them from kidnapping as best as a child can protect themselves from such an affair. Firstly, playing dress up isn’t wrong automatically. If the parents can instill a sense of detatchedness from the act of dressing up for others by–oh, I don’t know, a webcam-- then I don’t find it impossible to belive that the “ooky” factor will suddenly vanish. I find it less than impossible to believe, actually, and more like thinking it is a distinct possiblity.
You just don’t know that. You know the external data; you have no idea how the parents are helping her daughter integrate the experience. I am not prepared to jump to conclusions on the matter.
I just don’t find this to be based on factual evidence. She may see it the way you suggest if the parents don’t help explain what is and is not wrong about interacting with other people.
I’m simply offering one possiblity of setting a safety net for illegal and damaging behavior. Really, it is their job to know their child and determine what is appropriate. I don’t know that they are doing that; I suspect they are. What little evidence I have seems to suggest they are handling this in an appropriate manner. There is little more for me to do here without more information.
The damage is perceived by a third party with little or no contact with the first parties involved. I do see that it is a possiblity.
I have no idea how to answer that. I feel that parenting is such a complex behavior based so much upon the social and economic conditions present, the mentality and physiology of the child, and other hidden factors which don’t really deserve mentioning.
Primarily, however, I would believe that failing to attempt to educate your child about situations they may come across is fundamentally bad parenting. The problem there, of course, is the subjective perception of when you feel the child is prepared to understand at some level what you are trying to explain.
Some school systems are beginning to teach some children calculus or precalculus by the sixth grade. Children are not idiots, and they are not contextually inept. We must instill in them what knowledge of experience we can given what they may encounter and in a way they can understand. Without knowing the specific child or what the specific parent(s) can teach, there is no way to determine, instantly, what constitutes a violation of good parenting apart from the rather obvious murder, torture, and so on.
Modelling, IMO, is not bad parenting in and of itself. It can be handled incorrectly. I do not feel that this is such a case, but I also can admit that I don’t have a high confidence in that assessment. It is stil a possiblity, in my mind, that something nefarious is going on here. I am not ready to torch their house to find it without more direct evidence. I am not willing to torch their house to find that evidence.
I hope I have addressed this to your satisfaction.
Probably because they are giving tacit approval of what is, in itself, harmless behavior.
I think you are assuming the child and parents have an IQ of 78 here. They certainly may have informed the child that this behavior is only safe when done in this manner, and that in any other manner–at her age–it is not safe. Really, the simplicity of safeness in this context is amazing.
I do not know that the parents have done what I mentioned. i see no indication that they haven’t.
I simply see no evidenec for that. There is a greater than 75% chance, IMO, that this girl is being informed that the behavior she is engaginng in is only appropriate the way she is doing it. I would bet that the parents are doing this is actually more like 100% since they are pretty aware of the audience, or at least the active members of the audience.
Well, I suppose a viable alternative might be to make her so paranoid about her own sexuality that when she tries to persue a meaningful relationship later in life she clamps her legs shut, refuses to wear skirts and especially avoids lingerie, and generally becomes a frightened person.
For Eris’s sake, I saw my first naked woman in a magazine when I was in the summer between second and third grade. Later in the thrid grade year I learned about sex itslf from a medical book (a friend was a doctor’s son). Frequently, from then on, I sought out pornography and was fascinated by the sex act. I got a talking to about sex when my mother had discovered that I was keeping a beaten up old playboy around. Now, I cannot say that I then grew up in an otherwise normal manner or that I am now a normal person. I can say that I am not a deviant. I can say that being exposed to sexuality, and then recieving a proper explanation, prepared me to see sex in a way that seems revolutionary to some people. I do not feel I am ultimately unique, and so i believe that other parents and children have, and will continue to, reach a level of understanding far earlier than other may with no ill affects.
I believe that this case represents one such possible group.
I think it definitely goes beyond the boundries of “good taste.” Heck, I don’t even dress that skimpy, and those girls wear more make up at 10, than I do at 23!
Look, all little girls like to play dress up-fine. But then let them play in Mommy’s old dresses and nightgowns, cut off at the hem, with oversized floppy hats, huge gloves and enormous heels. Let them be children, not some pervert’s wet dream fantasy.
As parents, it should be their duty to protect their children from potential harm and damage and to teach them proper values. This is teaching them to sell and exploit themselves for money.
Hi tracer - long time, no see!
Thanks for at least noticing my post, even if it only rated a hijack.
You really have no idea what this is teaching her. What you mention is the default scenario wher the parents take no active role in integrating the experience for their daughter. I find that considering, as a default position, parents don’t help their children understand the world around them is a very paranoid response, not to mention degrading to the [long] history of normal people interacting in a successful nation.
It is certainly true some parents do this. It is then our job as a caring society to help keep guard against some parents in ways that don’t border on hysteria. This can be accomplished through public awareness efforts, the media, or legal measures. I would hope that a relatively civlized society would use legal measures as an absolute last resort. Apparently my conception of civilized is incorrect, my faith in parents is misplaced, and my ability to use facts to come to a conclusion is not functioning properly. Would you, guin, say that any of this is true?
Sure I do. As I was saying:
e-lover you are assuming that the only risk is from those pedophiles and molesters on the web site. That’s not correct. You are also assuming that it’s ok for a parent to intentionally place their child in harms way, and increase her risk for that harm as long as they make some attempt to prevent the harm from actually occuring, and for motives of $$.
You assume w/o substantiation that the parents are carefully explaining to the child “now Molli, it’s really important that you understand that you can only wear your thong bikinis and thigh high/high heels outfit when we’re filming you, any other time is absolutely forbidden and really dangerous”. And, of course, you’re also assuming, w/o substantiation, that if they did in fact say that, little Molli, just like any other teen, would consistently and completely believe her parents and never disobey them. And you talk about our leap-o-logic.
Would it be ok for the parent to encourage the child to play in traffic, as long as they’d made some attempt to yank 'em out of the way of oncoming vehicles, taping it for 'Jerry Springer’s Annual Family Beat"? I don’t think so. And that’s pretty much what I see happening here. They’ve created a situation where they’re dangling bait in the form of their child, in front of people (at least some of whom) would intentionally harm her, showing her creative ways of attracting exactly that kind of behavior, then assuming that it’ll never happen in her own real life world. It happens to little girls and boys every day even without all that prep work - like I said, they’ve just made the predator’s life much easier - she’ll already know what to do and have the outfits to use.
** hmmm logical fallacy much? The choice is not “either we teach her to tart up and prance half naked so adult men can ogle her or she’s be a repressed frigid woman”. But then, you knew that. I’m disappointed that you’d bother either of us with such things like this.
Interesting that you allow yourself to make predictions of 'there’s a 75% chance the parent is doing blah blah blah" but the second any of us make some statement about what the parent is doing, what the child is doing, or who the customers are, you’re all over us. If you’re ‘allowed’ to make up #'s and assumptions (‘I’m sure they’ve tgalked to her about this, warned her blah blah blah’,) my assertions (which are based on tendencies in real life child molesters, data re: real life molestations, and their own words) would certainly have merit.
I believe that most (perhaps not all - doesn’t matter) of the customers of the site are pedophiles and child molesters. Persons other than that would have little means and cause to repeatedly pay to view. It seems that you agree with that. I also assume that the parents know who the bulk of the customers are (and you seem to agree that it’s likely - words such as ‘don’t be so obvious’ etc. indicate this).
Whatever level of understanding the child has is immaterial to me. Since in our country, children are not allowed to sign contracts etc. Even if the child knows the audience, they are too young to be able to assess the risks of pandering to that audience etc. That, sadly, was left up to the parent, who are of the mistaken belief that they can simulateneously have their child entice molesters and pedaphiles, while protecting her from contact with them.
YOu have failed to adequately explain how this can be done. Other than that I’d be repeating myself, you’re certainly repeating yourself.