Well, no, I’m not a parent. I have had quite a bit of interaction with the younger kids in my neighborhood (well, my previous neighborhood), playing with them, tossing the ball, asking them about school, etc etc. Most kids thinking processes were certainly not what you or I would call “logical.” One wanna-be precocious young boy once asked me if Indian Givers pooped little indian shaped turds. I have yet to figure out exactly what an indian shaped turd would look like.
However, if I may offer more anecdotal commentaries, there was a lady I was considering proposing to for some time. She had two children, a son and a daughter. The daughter was a fine example of the species: intelligent, witty, pretty, etc. I could not believe how much more mature she was compared to most children I’ve met at her age, or even how I was at her age. I simply have no idea how she ended up that way, but she clearly was an example of a child who was far older in many ways than her age (the son was the complete opposite :()
The point is, I have interacted with and been personally a child who was more mature than their age let on (though I personally seemed to stop maturing around age 21 :D) alone. These children are out there. And they can certainly make stronger connections about lessons learned than the average child. I knew some 16 year olds who were more responsible then than I am now.
IMO, if these people are dancing on the edge of the law, then it is possible that they are doing so responsibly. It is also possible that they are not, as you and others suggest. I remain ambivalent, and for the sake of argument, am even willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I can’t see one redeeming thing about this whole situation.
The girls are eye candy for pedophiles. Period. I don’t care how much little Amber likes playing dress up, or that Tiffani likes interacting with her fans. Hell, I used to like to play with matches-but after almost setting a friend’s carpet on fire, I learned it wasn’t such a hot idea.
Just to add some perspective I think you guys should check out Marykateandashley.com. Remember the Olsen twins from full house? They or their parents have turned into excellent business people. I’m sure these girls will be buying their own colleges when they’re 18. These girls do more than model, but of all the pictures in there, most of them involve the girls wearing very tight clothes. They sell videos and other mary-kate and ashley paraphenalia.
This is an example of a web site that I think actually aims to other young girls. It’s the sort of site that I think Jessie the kid’s mom felt (or at least pretended to feel)she was making. Both of those sites I think are very different from the Tiffany Teen Model web site which I doubt is run by a parent or contributes to the child’s college fund.
I do think she (the mother) has crossed the line by making it a pay site though. I wouldn’t say “sick and wrong”, because I don’t know the parent. At this point I can only say that it is questionable, and if I were her friend, I would have to have a long talk with her.
I think there can be a child’s model web site that can contribute to the modeling career of the child. Perhaps many of us forget that many runway models are under 18 and they often strut around with sexy poses and wearing hardly anything at all.
Also I think any kind of exposure to the limelight can attract stalkers. Being a pedophile and being a stalker are different things and they may or may not be inclusive.
Is there anyone here who is a parent and approves of this?
I think some of the honest opinions here that this is not damaging to the kids are coming from people who have never had children, and therefore don’t realize how fragile their little psyches really are.
I have a 4 year old daughter. I have friends and relatives who were abused when younger, and I’ve seen what kind of psychological damage it does. And that abuse doesn’t have to be fondling and penetration - just learning that a beloved teacher who was a major role model in your life, and who claimed that you were a great kid and spent all that time with you did so because he was copping feels and masturbating late at night thinking about you is enough for some women to simply shatter their world.
I can’t imagine what some of these kids are going to feel like when they become adults, look back on their ‘happy playgrounds in front of the camera’, and realize what their parents were doing. I think there are going to be a lot of hard-hearted, cynical young women with serious relationship problems out there. THAT is why this is wrong.
This is damaging those kids. I guarantee it. Their lives will be worse off because this is happening. They are not old enough to understand that. Their parents should be protecting them from this kind of stuff, not encouraging them into it to make a buck.
No, I don’t consider all forms of modeling to be ‘prostitution dressed up’. Never said it, never suggested it. More on that in a minute.
And I never said that prostitution was the only lesson the child could gain from this activity; there are a number of lessons I think she can learn; I just can’t see any good ones.
The age of the audience is of great importance, that’s for sure.
I’m all for people - including children - developing a healthy sexuality. What that means is different for different age groups, but when it comes to interactive sexual experiences, I believe that being able to say ‘no’ is an inherent part of being able to freely say ‘yes’ - to holding hands, to ‘making out’ (do they still call it that, I wonder?), to sexual intercourse, to a serious D/s experience in one’s basement dungeon, whatever.
We assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that adults can and do freely consent to sexual relations they engage in. There’s the assumption that adulthood brings a certain rough parity in sexual dealings. That’s not the case between adults and children or even kids in their mid-teens: we’ve been through a lot of stuff already, we know the scripts, we can manipulate them in ways they can’t see because they haven’t had time to see but so much. (Now that’s fundamental. There ain’t no way around that.) This unevenness increases the likelihood of the younger participant being manipulated into consent rather than giving it freely.
That’s the reason for the taboo on sex between adults and minors, or at least it’s one of them - and IMO enough reason by itself for the taboo. The taboo extends to drooling too conspicuously over minors, once you’re of a certain age. (I’m of ‘a certain age’ and then some, and many of my contemporaries have daughters in their teens. Speaking from experience, I don’t think the way I take only a passing notice of said daughters’ increasing charms is simply a personal choice; it’s something culturally ingrained and reinforced. It also helps me treat them as people rather than as attractive young bodies to drool over, which brings me back to my main point: that as part of the larger community that is raising children, I share in the responsibility to not unnecessarily objectify them.)
~Is the item being sold of fundamental importance?
No, because minors’ using their sexuality in too nontrivial a way to sell anything crosses the line into being about the minor as sex object. But when what they’re selling is themselves, it leaves no doubt as to what’s going on: if a 14 year old is in a bathing suit ad, we may draw different conclusions about whether it’s just the bathing suit being sold, but if she is herself the product, that ends the argument. (I think this underlay some of Freedom’s assertions earlier.)
~Is there a way for this girl to model which you wouldn’t consider pornography?
Oh, sure. Pull out your J.C. Penney catalog, and look at the child/teen models there. Or in the ad supplements with your Sunday paper. Hopefully the difference between how the young girls in those pictures are posed, and how Jessi the Kid and Tiffany Teen Model are posed, is readily apparent.
~If she can model without it being pornography, what lessons would she necessarily learn from the experience?
Depends on how her parents handle it. Pretty much anytime kids start being excessively valued for a single aspect of their being, or making more than what would be a trivial contribution to the household budget, the parents had best play that ‘active role in integrating the experience.’ We’ve seen how Macaulay Culkin turned out, and how Jennifer Capriati was turning out for awhile.
The point needs to be made that you want your children to be possessed of a basic sense of confidence and self-worth, but you don’t want them to think they have the right to look down on their peers due to some special attribute. And you don’t want them to be deriving too great a portion of that sense of self-worth from any one or two aspects of their makeup and abilities, be it acting or tennis, their looks or their sexuality. That will not serve them well.
~Is child modelling fundamentally a bad action that responsible parents wouldn’t allow their child to engage in?
No, but the sort that Tiffany is engaging in is. It helps break down the walls of what is a very healthy taboo (if you wish to claim that’s an oxymoron, I’ve provided an argument for you to rebut first), it packages them as little sex objects, and it certainly would lead them to see their sexual allure as an outsize part of their worth.
And that’s without dealing with the issues involved in modeling in a provocative manner while prepubescent, as in the case of Jessi (and Amber when she started). In Tiffany’s case, there’s at least an argument on your side, even if I clearly believe it’s a losing one: the fact that her body’s telling her she’s a sexual being raises the question of what expressions of that are healthy, and that’s where we diverge. But when Jessi is, or JonBenet was, posing provocatively at an age where their bodies were sending no such signals - to say that that’s a healthy expression of their sexuality is just bullshit.
I fail to see the ultimate distinction between using a child for your own purposes while it instills a lesson in them and using a child for your own purposes while it instills a lesson in them.
I fail to see that the girl can only assume her worth is if she is being “sexy.” I find the possibility that she does not otherwise interact with the rest of the world to be a bit of an exaggerated assumption. She may also take pride in her schoolwork; is she then being taught that her sole worth is only as an intellectual giant? She may be good in some sports; is she then being taught that her only worth is in physical activity?
It doesn’t matter-she’s still be dangled in front of potential child molestors, pedophiles, complete strangers, like bait.
She may have straight As and a merit scholarship-but her parents are still sending the message out that it’s okay for these men to drool over her and send her clothes. Complete strangers.
Parents like this make Baby Jesus Cry.
Well, hell, so do I. Is there a context for this remark, or was it an unintended typo?
Where did I say that was the case? Did Macaulay Culkin, who I brought up earlier, get his overblown sense of self-worth from being sexy?
Nope, but in this case, her sexual allure is the attribute that outside photographers are brought in to record; it’s the attribute that’s being broadcast all over the Internet; it’s the attribute that brings in cash and skimpy clothing from complete strangers.
Whatever she might value herself for, she’s being taught that this particular attribute is what the adult world - from parents to total strangers - puts extraordinary emphasis on. It’s possible that she’s managing to retain a balanced perspective of her self-worth amidst all this. But like Damon Runyon said, the fight is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but it’s not the way to bet.
Yeah, there’s certainly no way she could get this impression from any other industry.
RTF, the context was that you gave two examples of a parent profiting from their child. I fail to see the ultimate distinction between the two cases, except for that you automatically perceive one to be harmful due to the lessons learned which aren’t really harmful lessons. Or, at least, I haven’t seen why they are harmful lessons yet. wring is coming close to convincing me, I think, but this debate has more to go.
Re: the Olsen twins, there are several differences between their sites and those we are discussing in this thread (I checked out the site, cringing at the thought that one of my coworkers would notice). For one thing, they are quite a bit older, 16 or so I think. Secondly, they are already involved in show business and have developed a fanbase, there’s a fundamental difference between promoting talent to already-existing fans and putting revealling pictures of a kid forth in the hopes she will attract fans. Also, the Olsen twins are reaching a stage of their career where they are probably obtaining lots of teenage male fans, which they are of course trying to appeal to. I remember in my teenage years when Alyssa Milano started to develop, more than one of my friends had pictures of her in tight imitation snakeskin pants on their walls (yes, both had the same picture, and I teased them a lot about it). Those kinds of glamour shots are definitely not as innocent as the ones taken for these kids fanclubs when they were 10, but it’s a natural branch of mainstream Hollywood talent evolution.
It may bear discussion, but I don’t think it has much to do with the OP.
That isn’t an argument that convinces me. As a parent, I don’t throw up my hands when it comes to setting standards and teaching morals “just because other media/industries will teach her otherwise.” I expect that parents will do more, care more, than society at large and certainly more than any media outlets about teaching their children about self-esteem, self-worth, and the appropriate role for sexuality as one is maturing. They shouldn’t leave it up to society, and they shouldn’t look to the lowest common denominator in the larger world for setting their own standards in the home.
It isn’t supposed to be a convincing argument, it is a mention that the desire to quelch this sort of lesson will need to permeate all of society, not just making a petty law about dubious behavior.
Well, there are laws abounding for the protection of children. Laws about how far the slats can be spaced on cribs, laws requiring child restraint systems in cars, laws about fire retardant material on children’s sleepers. There was even a push on for manufactures to not put tie strings around the necks of childrens’ outerwear because a small number of kids had the tie string get caught in a slide and choked to death. In each case, it was not left up to anyone to prove that all children were harmed, just some, and that the potential for all to be harmed was there.
You seem to focus on two things: 1. there is no specific proof that this child in question is being molested. and 2. there are other ways that children can be harmed, or can ‘learn’ these lessons about being used.
Unfortunatley for your argument, 1. this isn’t a court of law where proof is required beyond a reasonable doubt. We are the court of ‘opinion’ and debate where we’ve demonstrated that the actions in question have a high probability of allowing this child to be harmed. 2. this doesn’t answer the primary issue, which is not how many ways can a child get exploited, harmed, wronged, be put in danger, but ‘why should it be right, moral and ok for any set of parents to knowingly induce their child into behaviors designed to lure child molesters and pedophiles?’ To which all of the rest of us keep on saying ‘nope, it isn’t right, moral and ok to do this’
There is no specific proof of anything which indicates that the girl is being harmed, or that the girl is not being harmed. I agree that in a debate we are free to speculate. I do not feel that that speculation logically carries or requires our further condemnation.
My second contention is that these acts have the same inherent “lesson-damage” value as a number of other acceptable behaviors, further exemplifying that we should not use our assumptions and speculations to source outright condemnation.
my point eris is that it’s not necessary for us to demonstrate proof this child was harmed, but merely to show that harm has a great potential for happening.
IOW. for court to sentence some one to prison = proof beyond reasonable doubt harm occured.
for court to hold people responsible in a civil way = a preponderance of the evidence/
for us (society) to hold that an action is objectionable = a great liklihood of harm to occur (we are NOT required to wait until some child is harmed to decry something as being too dangerous to allow a child to do).
You’re attempting to hold us accountable to the standards in court of criminal law. The debate centers around the issue ‘is this ok or not ok’, which isn’t attempting to demonstrate anything ffrom a legal certainty regarding these parents. and, we’ve met our burden. You, OTOH, have been able to demonstrate merely that "it’s not impossible for the child to have remained unharmed, and there’s other things that can do the same damage (alibet to a much lesser degree of both certainty and seriousness).
(ie - all of these ‘other’ activities - the idea of child modeling itself for example - while a child molester might use the picture in the same manner, they wouldn’t have the same access to the specific child, while the child modeler is getting a lesson about ‘looks’ being important, they are not also getting the lesson about posing spcificically in skimpy clothing with sexual poses and accepting presents from strange adult men etc. Hence lesser degree of potential harm plus lesser degree of exposure to specific harm = APPRECIABLY and appropriatelyy much lesser degree of concern)
This is bad because it validates and reinforces pedophiliac tendencies.
It’s a step in a very bad direction.
Catering to pedophiles is wretched and inherently dangerous.
Anybody that wishes to have sex with a small child is by my definition, an insane deviant, unbound by the conventions of society.
You need to be pretty far from reality and be able to rationalize your fantasies to an astounding extent to be a pedophile.
This brings there fantasies a step closer to actualization.
The child on the net might not suffer directly from the pedophile watching her, but it may embolden such a person to seek a real life outlet elsewhere, and that child would suffer.
There are some things which are just inherently wrong. No explanation is necessary. This is one of them.
In short:
We are saying that while it’s not impossible for this particular child to have been harmed, we see a high liklihood of such, high probability of problems because of the nature of the contact, nature of the people it’s designed to attract.
In the other examples that you show, the nature of the contact (catalog vs. web site w/ ability to contact model directly and send her things), the nature of the poses & pics (sexual poses in skimpy outfits vs. outfits which may include some bathing suits shown in natural setting), and the specific market desired (acknowledged to be pedophiles and molesters vs. people looking to buy clothes for thier own kids for example) all combine to raise both the risk of harm and the potential for seriousness of harm, therefore allow us to condem the one without being concerned to extreme about the others.
In this example, it’s not impossible but is likely that harm would occur = we condem it. In the other examples, it’s not impossible for harm to not occur, but it’s not likely = we don’t condem it.
Evaluation of risk behavior is perfectly appropriate. It’s not necessary for us to condem every behavior that contains any amount of risk, for us to universally condem behavior that contains a high amount of risk.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I won’t consider it a personal attack, even though it is (given an appropriate definition of “pedophile,” anyway).
Luckily, I am far enough from reality to be spared the thought that I actually am far from reality. Dodged a bullet, there, didn’t I?
It hasn’t done that for me.
I find the idea that if I have a desire that I must act on it to be far from my reality, which is–by all rights–far from “real” reality, so I guess it doesn’t matter much.
Crap. First line should read (changes in italic)
We are saying that while it’s not impossible for this particular child to * not * have been harmed, we see a high liklihood that the child has been harmed or would be harmed in the future due to the actions of the parents, high probability of problems because of the nature of the contact, nature of the people it’s designed to attract.