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

Great Debates
141

No, I am not. I find it likely that they are doing it. I do not know that they are doing it. I see no evidence one way or the other, apart from their active patrolling of message boards.

No, I am not assuming that either.

For the record, I am stating that it not only not inconceivable, but it is actually possible that the parents are keeping their daughter out of harms way and explaining the situation to her in a way that she can understand.

I see no evidence one way or the other. Honestly.

Well, the analogy is not very apt but even if it were, kids play around traffic all the time. They walk to school. They play in the yard, mere feet from speeding cars. They ride their bikes, and in an area like mine that means on the roads.

And we adults with cars drive on by.

I did. Sometimes, hyperbole illustrates a point. That a middleground of acceptable behavior exists. That girls can model themselves without demeaning themselves, destroying their life, etc etc.

Well, I’m basing my opinions on the existence of the stable society in which we live. While I may not be completely justified in putting real numbers to it, since there is no evidence one way or the other, we do have an indication that the parents are trying to stop pedophilic comments from reaching her. Their reasons for this are also not obvious. We may speculate any number of things.

I am trying hard not to make assumptions where there is no evidence, but as both of us can testify, that is a difficult thing to do.

Yep, if we knew that this girl was being subjected to child molesters. Instead, she being subjected to censored people and their deleted tasteless comments. Sounds pretty harmful to me.

I admit I cannot think of who else would be a customer.

Funny, that’s usually how we interpret whether a person can consent to anything or not.

That’s why the parents are there.

[quote]
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.

[quote]

I admit the situation is of dubious character.

It seems that, by all rights, they have protected their child from them. Frankly, evidence is not present to coroborate your opinion.

She is a child model. I would prefer that she would be selling clothing or other stuff on the site, it would certainly put my mind at ease, but since it would ultimately be the same situation I don’t see that this is, ultimately, a problem.

142

you are assuming that the parents have talked to her, based on what??? that reasonable people wouldn’t put their kid in danger w/o taking precautions? I find no evidence to support the concept that these are reasonable people.

Please support your position that they are taking the precautions you describe (which may or may not protect her from those on the internet, would have less than zero effect on those in her neighborhood) All I’ve seen is that the mom cautioned the posters to ‘not be so obvious’ and they may delete the more suggestive comments quickly. That does not give any support to the idea that they’ve been at all candid with the child, let alone had long involved discussions with her regarding to issue.

you keep saying ‘the parents are there’. Where? are they taking the pictures? or hiring that out? you don’t know. You have no idea if the child is home schooled, goes to public school, plays outside, whatever. All either of us has is the data on the web site. This offers no information as to how the parents deal with the child in any other way. however, since, as I’ve pointed out, most parents are not in fact charging people $$ to see their child half naked in suggestive poses on the internet, I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest that they would in fact do ‘what any other regular parent would do’. Support for my position is that 'reasonable people" do not tart up their children to parade for pedophiles and molesters while charging a fee.

(we do not judge a child’s consent - they are not allowed to make decisions such as this in our country, that’s why the child’s level of understanding about this is immaterial to me).

Now, as for the ‘example by hyperbole’, since we agree that it doesn’t have to be one or the other, I’m saying that both ends of that stream are inappropriate and should not be encouraged. The parents here are in fact going to one extreme, not the middle of the road.

But, you know what? this is tiresome. You seem to be quite aware of what the issues are, acknowledge that it’s ‘not comfortable’, but refuse to acceed that the parents are doing something wrong, based on, apparently, your assumption that they’re taking steps that we haven’t seen, to protect their daughter. I see no reason to believe that. And no reason to continue to attempt to demonstrate it to you. There is no one more blind than those who refuse to see.

143

Ok.

144

Allow me to clarify my point for a final time, so you don’t continue to confuse my opinions themselves with my arguments against you.
[li]I don’t know whether or not the parents are informing their child of the situation. Neither do you.[/li][li]I do not know that they are upholding what I would consider to be good parenting standards. You do.[/li][li]I do not know how much money the girl gets from this, or in what manner she is receiving it. Neither do you.[/li][li]I do not know the motivations of the parents. Neither do you.[/li][li]I do know that children can be models. You do, too.[/li][li]I do know that this child is modeling. You do, too.[/li][li]I do know that child modeling is not fundamentally illegal. You do, too.[/li]Because of this
[li]I am not prepared to condemn these actions or the parents themselves. You, however, are.[/li]
The end.

145

Hi, folks. Offline for a few days. I was…in the…bathroom…yeah, that’s it. First off, regarding this:

I will refer you to this:

I wasn’t intending to attack you; I just took your word for it. My apologies, nevertheless. Hate doesn’t sit well with me, regardless of who it’s directed at. But still, you call someone a “sick fuck” and then start pissing about personal attacks? [sub][sup]Makes note to adjust IronyMeter[/sup][/sub] Sorry, anyway. You still haven’t answered my question, by the way: How do you know her name is fake? And “go-go name”? I’ve met a lot of Ambers in my life, and not a single one of them was a go-go dancer to my knowledge. Am I missing something?

Milossarian posted:

And…

Followed up with this:

(If nothing else, this thread’s gonna make me a coding genius :smiley: ) I would not be surprised if these things are related. As much as I understand the sentiment that we want our kids to remain naive little chillens until they’re off to college, the fact is they can reproduce at puberty. Maybe it is precisely this desire of ours to extend their childhood that renders them so incapable of handling their sexuality properly. By protecting their ‘innocence’ and letting ‘kids be kids’ we are prolonging their vulnerability. Is that really a wise thing to do?

Also posted by Milo:

I think the question of “what if we’re wrong” is a valid one (but unfortunately rarely asked or seriously considered), if only because we’ve pretty much agreed we’ve been wrong before (think of former attitudes towards interracial or homosexual relationships compared to our current ones).

Perhaps that those sorts of relationships aren’t automatically as devastating as we’ve been led to believe. Perhaps that the hysteria and seething hatred which this topic instantly instills in people is doing quite a bit of damage in its own right, and may be a significantly contributing factor to the harm these relationships can cause. Anyhoo, believing that we already know all there is to know is never a very good idea because it’s almost never true.

I’m not following this, quite. Clarify if you like.

Erm…I’m not convinced that is what the stats are showing. They certainly are demonstrative of childrens’ sexual vulnerability, but I don’t see a conclusive case that it’s “early sexualization” that’s causing it. Perhaps recognition and acceptance of children’s sexuality (they don’t grow genitalia when they turn 18, folks) might allow us to prepare them better to deal with this type of thing and make them less vulnerable. Just a thought.

Well, if having their sexuality formed by impositions upon them by adults results in their being mature enough to make such a decision, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Isn’t twelve and knowledgeable safer than sixteen and naive? I think that is the point.

One more bit of info, then I have to go read the rest of this monster-thread. A bit of research reveals that Amber’s site went pay only about a month ago. It’s been online and free for a year and a half. In case it matters. I still don’t know how I feel about this whole thing (although as a former twelve year old boy, I certainly appreciate it), but it’s a lot more complicated than “All their customers are perverts and the parents are moneygrubbing child-exploiters.” Easy way to look at it, though, for those who are looking for one. Not very accurate, however.

Anybody heard anything about Paula Poundstone lately?

146

For Eris and others:

Is it possible in our society that an individual minor can, knowingly (and in all possible meanings of that word), consent to a sexual act with an adult, or to the depiction of herself in a sexual manner to adults?

Of course.

Is it likely?

Not very, notwithstanding a zillion personal anecdotes concerning one’s own sexual behavior at ages x, y or z. Minors generally only have a fuzzy understanding of long-term consequences of immediate actions, particularly in a society as complex as our own. That’s why we make parents assume the responsibility. Part of the result is, naturally, a circularity: minors in our society may behave less responsibly precisely because we’ve placed the burden on their parents. Regardless of the causation, however, the result is the same: it’s doubtful that a minor will be willing or able to assess all of the ramifications of sexuality vis-a-vis adults. With kids her own age, she has more of a chance because there’s less of an imbalance, and accordingly less opportunity for exploitation.

And even if we were to suppose that a majority of, say, thirteen-year-olds were sufficiently self-aware and worldly-wise, on a policy level it wouldn’t be a good idea to presume such, because the consequences of making a mistake are too great.

Ergo age-of-consent laws, which exist in no small part for prophylactic reasons: since the consequences are so disastrous, we have placed adults on notice that they aren’t to tempt fate. As it happens, if the sexual behavior doesn’t cause any problems, there probably won’t be a prosecution - either no one will find out, or even if someone does (say, the minor’s parents), the prosecutor is free to exercise discretion to bring more minor charges. It’s imperfect, but the goal is protection of the vulnerable and so IMHO it’s justified.

I suspect that all of the above social factors lurk behind the unwillingness of Freedom, Milossarian and others (please forgive me if I’m speaking out of turn) to cut the parents any slack - especially given the mom’s “too obvious” comment. You, eris, seem to be terribly concerned that taking action against the parents would shame the kid out of enjoying her sexuality. I find that denoument a lot more speculative than the one others have envisioned - especially wring, whose professional experience informs her contributions.

Look, as a gay man I’ve met a few peers who, as minors, had sex with adult men and enjoyed it heartily and suffered no consequences. I wouldn’t second-guess their feelings for anything - and I agree that when assessing a particular individual it’s a bit too easy to assume the worst in our post-McMartin School world. That said, if I saw my 13-year-old (or even 16-year-old) son posing “flirtingly” in a Speedo for a 30-year-old, I’d scream bloody murder first and figure out if my son was actually OK with it later. If after close questioning I found he didn’t need my protection, he’d suffer minor embarassment and get over it. If he hadn’t thought it through and did need protecting, I’d be preventing some pain. That’s what parents do.

The fact that the parents are charging means that they can’t really provide that kind of counterbalance - they’re getting something out of it as well. And even if they weren’t charging, the recognition and vicarious excitement (in which far too many parents indulge, even without sexual overtones) would be enough to undercut their protective impulses.

147

95% of the people on this thread haven’t acknowledged your posts because they are completely too reasonable and have nothing to add.
:slight_smile:

148

I am truly not concerned about it. My opinions on why pedophilic actions are not welcome in society are truly irrelevant here.

Apart from that, I am pretty aware of reasons people have for outlawing pedophilic acts. My primary concern here is two-fold. One, I am speculating that the girl may be like me in some ways, and comfortable with her sexuality. Two, I am seeing that people are making a lot of wild-ass speculations as well. That mine is crazy and theirs aren’t, given a keen lack of information, is truly disturbing to me on a number of levels.

My interpretations of the event lead me to view it as such: she is modelling. Should she be doing it for The GAP or for her own family seems to be fundamentally the same. It would ease my personal conscience if she were just a model for The GAP. That is because I am aware that something nefarious could be going on here. That wouldn’t really change the situation, however, and so my opinion remains the same.

149

Ahh!!!

That last post was to RTFirefly:)

150

Ok, if we are simply requoting ourselves.

It is just as appropriate as when it was ignored.

151

And here I thought it was to me, indicating why you haven’t answered me about Amber’s name. :smiley: Do I think these sites are marketing to pedophiles? They’re certainly not trying to avoid it, but that doesn’t mean pedos are their entire audience by any means. Pedos probably watch “Barney”, too. Gonna lambast the parents of those girls, too? Ever watch Sesame Street? Little girls topless! :eek: :rolleyes:

How do you go about setting up a modelling site for young girls without it appealing to pedophiles? “Girls of the Taliban”? Face it, they’re going to be part of the audience whether anyone likes it or not. Probably a good portion of the paying audience, even. My understanding is that running a website costs money, and I don’t see any ads on the brief look around I’ve had. The money’s got to come from somewhere.

As I noted earlier, Amber’s site has been up for a year and a half. It only went pay last month. So in what way were her parents selling her “down the river” prior to that?

erislover: “A” for effort. Whew!

152

What the hell is a “model website”?

Let’s face it, there is no such thing as a pay-per-view adult model website that isn’t a porn site.
A traditional model is used to sell a specific and seperate product. A singer is selling her voice. An actress is selling her talent. All these people may use parts of their sexuality, but it is not their actual sexuality that they are selling.
A porn star is selling her own body. She is selling herself for the sexual gratification of others. There is nothing wrong with this at 18, but it is a big problem at 11.
Can anyone point out any adult with a similiar pay site that is non-pornographic?

Is there a web business here that I missed?

They were selling videos. Someone posted Amber’s “story” about she ended up with a website on page one of this thread.

Accepting for a second that her parents started out with just the intentions of giving their daughter a free “model” website for her to play around with, I would have to ask what the intentions of Molli’s parents were.

They started out as a pay site with a video to sell.
Will one of you guys who keep claiming that pedophiles are only a “part” of her customers please tell me who you think the rest of her customers are?

Who besides a pedohile would pay for access to these sites?

153

Thanks, Freedom. I was wondering what it was gonna take to get anyone’s attention in this brawl! :slight_smile:

Unfortunately, that doesn’t respond to what I’ve said.

What I’ve in fact argued is that there’s no way for the parent to ‘integrate this experience’ in a healthy manner.

Parents are indeed supposed to help their children ‘understand the world around them’. So if a parent hired her kids out to a sweatshop, and took “an active role in integrating the experience”, would that then be a good thing overall? Maybe if the parent did it just for a day, and then explained that, for many people around the world, that’s their life, decade after decade, amen. But if it were on an ongoing basis, the only experience to be ‘integrated’ would be that of being exploited by both the parents and the sweatshop owners. It could not be redeemed by appropriate ‘integration’, for there would be none.

I fail to see how having the kid put on the skimpy bathing suit that ‘cumtopoppa’ sent in, and having her model in provocative poses for him, can be appropriately ‘integrated’, for more or less the same reasons - reasons I explained in more detail in my initial post in this thread. (Page 3, near the top.)

If you care to develop a counterargument to what I said there, I’m all ears.

154

Freedom’s already pointed out that they were making money off the site before the site itself became pay-for-view.

But I made the point earlier that monetary gain is not a necessary component of exploitation. When the parents cooperate with the viewers to provide deliberately tantalizing images of their child for their masturbatory fantasies, that’s exploitation, even if no money changes hands. All concerned are involved in using that child as an object of pleasure.

Again, to erislover: how do the parents appropriately integrate the fact that a significant part of their value in their parents’ eyes - at 11, 12, 13 years old - comes from how their body and sexuality are perceived by grown men?

155

The way I see it, the parents are pimps.
If I were teh girls in question, I would learn that you can sell being sexy for money.

156

Well, though I’m quoting vanilla here, this point has of course been raised by multiple people so don’t feel like I’m slighting anyone here.

You certainly can learn that lesson from this. You could also learn it from magazine ads, television ads, billboards, music videos… well,lets just say that lesson can be learned from every popular media source with the possible exception of radio in those few areas where the Howards Stern Show doesn’t play.

Honestly, sex does sell. I do not see this as a bad thing because I like sex, and I like seeing sexy stuff.

Apart from that, for most people, knowing that you are being viewed as attractive (in any way, even if not in a sexual manner) is a very good feeling. We get slight (to great) feelings of elation, a modest blushing, a shit-eating grin–all sorts of pleasure responses.

So I don’t think it is really a bad lesson to learn in the first place. In fact, recognizing that sex is such a large part of being human is one of the best lessons people can learn in their entire life, I think, because it is so fundamental to our desires and to the survival of the species.

I don’t know what lesson this girl is taking out of it. Perhaps, like that commentary dijon linked way back on page one, she doesn’t associate sex with it at all. Maybe she’s not ready to see that, accept that, or maybe she has been sheltered enough (I can’t see how, though) to not know about sex. I just don’t know. But she clearly knows she has fans, she clearly knows people like her. One problem may be that she feels people like her for who she is instead of what she is. I’m not sure how the parents could handle that, or even if they are thinking about it. There’s just too many unknowns here, and too much room for a gradual integration of the whole experience, and–yes–too much room for deviant activities. I’m not comfortable with the leniency our evidence has because both paths are clearly possible.

Given our individual skews on the matter, some paths are more likely than others. These skewed opinions are the debate; not a recognition of facts.

RTFirefly, are you honestly suggesting that there is no other lesson this girl can be learning from this apart form some form of prostitution? I suppose if we consider any and all forms of modelling to be prostitution-dressed-up then I can understand where you are coming from. Is that the case? If not, can you please elaborate more? Some questions I have (and this can go for anyone who cares to answer, of course):
~Is the audience really of fundamental importance?
~Is the item being sold of fundamental importance?
~Is there a way for this girl to model which you wouldn’t consider pornography?
~If she can model without it being pornography, what lessons would she necessarily learn from the experience?
~Is child modelling fundamentally a bad action that responsible parents wouldn’t allow their child to engage in?

Thanks. And of course, if those questions could be answered with some semblence of essay form, not just a “yes” or “no” I would really appreciate it.

157

I’m not sure that I can make a general case for how to raise a child. I think that this is obvious. Without knowing the specific child and the specific parents I cannot say whether it is possible or how it would be done if it is possible.

I think children who are home-schooled at an accellerated case would benefit most from an early understanding of some important concepts. Really, I don’t need to know about economics of scale to buy a Sony Playstation. A thorough understanding of many topics will never make it into anyone’s brains.

Apart form that, I think the “grown men” thing is a total red herring and does not apply to the general feeling of “being viewed as sexy/attractive.” I mean, really, “Oh, I gots nothin’ against fags jes so’s long as they don’t hit on me.” :rolleyes:

The biggest problem of integrating the experience will lie in the daughter understanding that a portion of her “fans” are considered deviants by society, and that these persons are considered as persons who need to undergo therapy or be locked up… For finding her attractive, no less. Yes, that is truly a hard lesson to teach. In fact, I still haven’t come to terms with it myself.

158

how can you seperate the ‘intended audience’ from the experience? If the intended audience were other 11 year olds, the outfits would be different, the poses different etc. (and I don’t need to assume that 100% of the folks paying are pedophiles and molesters).

One of the jobs of a good parent is to attempt to keep their child safe - safe from hunger, illness, injury, bad people etc. Now, we understand that we won’t be able to do a perfect job, but at minimum, we should not intentionally expose a child to things that have a high likelihood of causing harm (while we might not keep our kid away from another child with a cold, we certainly would take precautions for polio for example.)

Instead, these parents have plastered her face and body over the internet, allowed some level of communication with certainly at least some pedophiles, allowed her to accept gifts from them (which means they’ve been given at least some address, most likely not their house, but it would give them a base to start with).

I’m very concerned that the basis of your stance is ‘I think she was like I was at her age’. I’m basing my stance on data - that most parents do not ‘tart up’ their daughters, that most take an active role in preventing child molesters and pedophiles from getting close to thier children, that they encourage their children to not accept gifts from strangers; that molesters and pedophiles will often work towards a goal of identifying children, getting them to dress up and pose, getting them to accept gifts.

Now, in terms of risk, certainly life is a risk, and there’s some risks we see as damned near unavoidable (any time you cross the street, get into a car etc… ) And, certainly a parent who smokes is increasing their child’s risk for illness, yet I’d not require the parent to quit smoking (encourage, nag etc yes)

But in this case, they’re increasing their childs risk of molestation. They’ve knowingly introduced her face, name and probably city where she lives, to a group of people who are willing and able to pay for skimpy clothing for her to wear and pay for each viewing. Now, can I proove that each and every single one of these is an adult male pedophile or child molester? no, however there certainly are at least quite a few of them in that number (and you seem to acknowledge this). So, again, it’s not necessary for all of them to be molesters, just some. And they’ve intentionally brought them into contact with their daughter.

In addition to these on the internet (who may or may not have the wherewithall to seek her out in person), they’ve established that dressing in skimpy outfits and posing for pictures while accepting gifts from strange men is something that mom and dad allow.
(re the 'only if mommy/daddy is there - well hell, that’s what my baby brother was told about his beebee gun, too. Worked right up until he shot Shirley Temple and busted our TV)

There is always a small risk of your child being molested. This is unavoidable. To intentionally raise that risk, even if you believe (and I don’t) that they have attempted to ‘raise’ her protection as well, is unconscionable. You cannot simulataneously expose your child to risk and make some stab at lessening the risk when the obvious solution is to not raise the level of risk in the first place. It certainly was not a requirment (for example, risking a plane flight to seek out medical attention at the Mayo Clinic), it’s stated purpose was to get money.

159

But you’re killing me :slight_smile: (and I hope kabbes won’t hold that comment against me :eek: )

Hell, I’m pretty sure that the main portion of the audience is pedophiles and potential molesters. I’m doubting that it is frequented by once-active molesters because of the trouble they would most likely get in for it, but there’s probably a few rogue members out there.

Yep.

Yeah, the gifts aspect does allow the case for a more aggressive molester to seek out contact, possibly successfully, depending on how the address dealie is handled. As well, having the identity of the photographer be known also raises potential “following the guy” problems (which I’m suprised no one has mentioned, or if they have I’m sorry I missed it).

It isn’t. My stance is that it is possible and that I’m not going to rule it out as a possibility without more evidence.

And you’ve got an excellent point, don’t think I’m slighting it. Even if you weren’t a person who has had active experience in these cases I would still recognize the point. This behavior most certainly has a possbility of weakening an otherwise “natural” (as a condition of society) defense. If the loss of that “natural” defense is not handled correctly then I agree that there is a significant problem. I feel it can be handled correctly, and I still don’t know if it is or isn’t. I don’t automatically condemn people because there is a potential for harmful action.

Well, any parent who puts their child in the public eye through some form of modelling does this. Allowing clothes to be sent and modelled does, as I’ve agreed, heighten the issue. But do we know that there aren’t a huge number of ped’s who are active in the child modelling industry to begin with? All those beauty pageants, commercials, Sesame Streets (good one, dijon!), etc etc. Hell, the very act of putting a child in the public eye does this. In fact, doing it for something like Sesame street or Romper Room may even be more dangerous because it may give the parents a false sense of security. No?

I hope I haven’t given the impression that you need to.

I’m not sure that the level of contact they’ve permitted is essentially that dangerous. I’m thinking, here, of the example my state set (MA) by allowing a known sex-offender’s residence to be public knowledge. This person, even had they gone through therapy, been “cured” or whatever term we would apply, could ever, ever integrate themselves into society again. Because a person is a pedophile or a potential molester (I’m going to ignore, for the sake of brevity, the case where the person is a known molester becuase I think that is statistically an very small number) doesn’t mean they can’t make a little girl feel pretty when she is, in fact, pretty. And that they can’t do so without mentioning her pussy or how they’d love to…well, you know, I just don’t even want to give examples which would raise my opponent’s adrenaline levels after we’ve clearly reached a level of reasoned debate. :slight_smile:

Well, at the very least she’s learned that this is something mom and dad allow in a very specific case. If we are automatically going to assume worst-case scenarios then this isn’t a debate, its a witch hunt.

Well, that is clearly a reasonable solution. And it is obviously a common solution! I’m not convinced yet that the whole scenario is unconscionable. Short of you reaching a final level of exasperation, without more evidence I’m going to be a real hard person to cease debating on the matter (as is my would-be companion in these debates, the great dijon).

Again, I’m not sure how you feel about child modelling in general, or if you feel that there can be a case where this girl is modeling and is still a conscionable situation/action.

I would like to mention, in closing this post, that I really would love to have the parents of any of these girls in here (and there are obviously quite a few by the banners linked on Tiffany’s page). I have quite a few non-abusive questions I’d like to ask them, hell even if by email. I did, in fact, put a link to this thread at one of the Yahoo! Clubs in hopes that someone would come in here and comment on it since I’m assuming that none of us are actually members or workers on these sites. Their opinions on the matter would really be very telling. Something tells me that won’t happen though; gee, I wonder why? :wink: :smiley:

160

my point eris is parents are to protect their child.

There are unavoidable risks, there are avoidable risks. there are risks that one assumes for ones child based on weighing out pros and cons (I signed the paper for my son to have sinus surgery, based on multiple evaluations of his condition, the probabilty of success, the current level of his discomfort etc. The benefits outweighed the risks).

In this case, the parents may be taking extra cautions against the molestster finding her, but this is subsequent to their setting her out as bait. To me, any amount of protection they attempt after the fact does not balance out the fact they put her in an increased risk category intentionally in the first place. and it is this behavior that I find reprehensible.

If the child involved had, as you speculate, a higher sense of sexuality in the first place, frankly that, to me, means they should have taken more serious steps in the first place to **not ** have her attract the attention of c/m, pedophiles. Instead, of course, they had her flaunt it.

The fact I keep on saying and ‘for $$’ well, I can’t think of any other analogy - the operation for my son was a risk for his ultimate benefit, that couldn’t have happened in any other way (we tried medications etc.). their only claimed benefit is her subsequent education. Which is emminently achievable through a wide variety of other means. It’s simply not a question of ‘tart her up or she’ll never make it to college’.

Re: child modeling in general - from what I see in Sears catalog etc, they are kids acting as kids, posing as kids. When they’re posing in underwear, it’s not done with a coquettish stance, make up, thigh highs etc. The beauty pagent stuff that I saw with the Ramsey case made me queasier than hell as well, because of the same sort of thing. Yes, little girls like to dress up. But, the playboy type poses are not a childs pose.

You’re not a parent, are you? I ask this 'cause you keep on referring to the idea that perhaps the parents have emphasized that ‘only do with when mommy /daddy is here’, as if that works.

I am a parent, but frankly, I also remember what it was to be a child. Children do not think in the same linear way you seem to believe that they do (“mommy insists that she is here when I do this, therefore, I should only do this when mommy is here”).

Examples: When I was 8, I wasn’t allowed to go through the woods w/o a ‘grownup’. My friends Stuart & Bruce convinced me with this: “a grown up is 16, right? I’m 8 and he’s 8 and 8 + 8= 16”. My son, at age 6, believed that when he and I wore matching t-shirts, no one could tell us apart. Hell, at 3, he’d pick up a toy and hold it in front of the phone to ‘show’ the other person, even though he understood that he couldn’t see them. At age 13, my son knew that the telephone bill had a record of long distance calls, but was astonished to find out that it included the time the call was made.

I tell people all the time that telling little kids to watch out for strangers can set them up for a molester that is known to them (‘your mommy knows me, right?’) and in this case, the guy is somebody potentially ‘mommy knows’ and mommy has let you talk to me before on line, and let me give you presents, etc.

Kids disobey their parents all the time. It’s a fact of life. And, once the kid has had the message ‘this behavior is ok’, it’s entirly unreasonable to assume that the part of the message that they’ll keep is the “only when mommy is right there” part.