# Teen & Pre-Teen Modeling, Part Deux **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2001, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637 "2001-08-02T14:52:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/1 "2001-08-02T14:52:04Z")
[Interesting article here](http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/diet.fitness/07/23/body.image.ap/index.html) for those of us concerned about the lessons we teach our children, even when they aren’t modeling. Resolved: Teen and pre-teen model sites teach the children who participate in them that it is ok to sell sex. Which it is. Resolved: The rest of the “good” media teaches kids to develop eating disorders. Which is bad. Ok, perhaps it isn’t resolved (“perhaps” nothing, **erl** , it ain’t!-- Ok, ok…), but the other debate was on its last page already and I think that some posters had more things to say, and I had more I wanted to hear, and I got all hot-under-the-collar and pretty much killed the last page-and-a-half of it anyway, sooo… I want to keep going. The issue I seek more understanding on is the tack some of the posters seemed to be taking, which was along the lines of lessons learned from the experience, and how “regular” modeling and other behaviors taught ok lessons. I disagreed, and still do, but I’d like to get back to it. **NOTE** : As I did provide a few sources for in the other thread, the term “pedophile” has no agreed upon definition with the possible exception of the [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/) version, which seemed to be the intersection of all the definitions I found. I am **respectfully requesting** that we avoid using that word unless you want it to follow that definition. [sub]PS: Scylla: can we get over the spat and leave it in the other thread to die?[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/2 "2001-08-02T15:08:16Z")
For completeness, I suppose i should link to the other thread. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=79152](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=79152) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/3 "2001-08-02T15:24:44Z")
erl: No spat here, but I honestly don’t wish to debate with you on other subjects unless and until you’re willing to address my rebuttals to your previous points. The pattern of posting an argument, ignoring a rebuttal, and reposting the same argument does not further debate. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/4 "2001-08-02T16:00:31Z")
You didn’t address my “points” or any of my arguments. You addressed my anger at you using offensive terms when you entered the debate. I’d care not to respond to those. If that means you won’t be in this debate with me, then so be it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/5 "2001-08-02T16:05:47Z")
::sigh:: That’s simply not true. If you care to point out any rebuttal (with quotes please,) that you made to any point I made in that thread to which I did not respond (up to the 8 questions post,) I will gladly respond to them with sincere apologies for not having done so. Failing that I’d like a retraction of your accusation. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/6 "2001-08-02T17:55:33Z")
Um, respectfully, **Scylla** , although I agree that points were not properly rebutted and rebuttals not properly responded to in the other thread, couldn’t you two either settle those issues back there or just leave 'em? And, respectfully, **erl** , could you _puh-leeze_ state your debate topic in a more succinct and focused manner? I think I understand you to be contending that there are useful lessons for children to learn by pandering to pedophilia, but no useful lessons for them to learn by pandering to fashion. Is this an accurate read? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/7 "2001-08-02T18:38:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*Um, respectfully, **Scylla** , although I agree that points were not properly rebutted and rebuttals not properly responded to in the other thread, couldn’t you two either settle those issues back there or just leave 'em? > \*\* Normally I’d agree with you. Seeing as this is seems to be a continuation of the previous thread with a different spin and that erl chose to directly address me, I thought it appropriate to respond. Finally, it is certainly possible that the creation of this thread was a direct effort to evade those issues, in which case I am not inclined to offer a free pass and go around the Merry Go round again. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/8 "2001-08-02T18:55:46Z")
First, even if I am right, I don’t want an apology for anything. I want to debate this issue to gain a clearer understanding. Now, these are the statements you made, edited into one quote which was taken from several different posts over two pages. please note the keen lack of “addressing points” and isntead the presence of “absolute observations.” All uses of the word “pedophile” have been suitably replaced by “child molester” due to this quote, “I was using the term ‘pedophile’ as one who who engages in pedophiliac activities, not merely as one who has the desire to do so. I should have written more carefully.” > [@](#): > > _Scylla’s points_[ol] > [li]This is bad because it validates and reinforces [child molesting] tendencies.[/li][li]It’s a step in a very bad direction.[/li][li]Catering to [child molesters] is wretched and inherently dangerous.[/li][li]Anybody that wishes to have sex with a small child is by my definition, an insane deviant, unbound by the conventions of society.[/li][li]You need to be pretty far from reality and be able to rationalize your fantasies to an astounding extent to be a [child molester].[/li][li]This brings [their] fantasies a step closer to actualization.[/li][li]The child on the net might not suffer directly from the [child molester] watching her, but it may embolden such a person to seek a real life outlet elsewhere, and that child would suffer.[/li][li]There are some things which are just inherently wrong. No explanation is necessary. This is one of them.[/li][li]I find [erl’s] rationalization of pedophilia disturbing. “They know what they are doing.” “Children have sexuality.” These are neither true nor or they valid justifications.[/li][li]A [child molester] is a destroyer of children, and he/she does so for the most trivial of reasons: sexual pleasure.[/li][li]If you are fucking children, you are evil. Period. If you feel this desire, you better damn well repress it.[/li][li]A large part of being a human being is realizing that your immediate pleasure is not the most important thing in the world, and that the rights of others must be respected.[/li][li]A child has a right not to be molested, not to be preyed upon, not to be used, not to be destroyed.[/li][li]I might add that IMO these sites are examples of molestation. Children are being used for the purpose of sexual gratification of adults.[/li]\*\*\* here is where his use of “pedophile” was cleaned up. > [li]I don’t think you can use the “it could be worse” argument to suggest that what actually is happening is ok. I suppose the Oklahoma bombing could have been worse too. [erl’s note: this is in response to the following quote: “But too many people here are treating these sites as if they were as bad as forced sexual intercourse, to which I say, ‘Horsefeathers.’”[/li][li]But having live kids perform on the internet specifically for their sexual gratification is not acceptable, nor legal probably.[/li][li]These laws exist as an imperfect representation of an idea that most people clearly understand, though it is to a degree intangible. That idea is simply: As an adult it is wrong to take sexual advantage of children.[/li][li]I think it’s safe to say that we all understand the difference between desire and action. I also think that it’s safe to say that everybody has desires from time to time that are not appropriate. It’s also safe to say that their are varying degrees of inappropriate actions, with some worse than others. None of these things are earthshaking revelations.[/li][li]If you are above the age of consent and you are engaged in sexual activity with people below the age of consent, you are breaking the law. If you are 25 years old and having sex with 15, 16, and 17 year old children, you are clearly taking advantage of them. You’re a predator.[/li][from here things dissolve into a pissing match about the definition of pedophilia][/list=1] Now… [quote] _Things erislover was trying to understand from his opponents_[list=1] [li]…I can’t see that pictues of girls wearing clothes they could wear in public, or on a public beach, should be considered [promoting child molestation].[/li][li]I think that the idea that 11 year olds are innocent little kittens and puppies… is a bit more naive than we are accusing the parents of being.[/li][li]By reports in the media and parental activists on the subject, I am inclinded to believe that children learn about sex even earlier than I did [which was later revealed to be in third grade][/li][li]Children are aware of their sexuality at a pretty young age, and perhaps at a younger age [now] than [when I learned about it]. This does not mean they have the maturity to handle it. I am not arguing about that here. The question is, is this pornography? I think one must twist to meaning of the word to come to that conclusion. The girls are wearing clothes that they could legally wear in public.[/li][li]I might note that the entire audience is not represented by the number of posts to a fucking message board.[/li][li]I can figure out lots of things. One of the things I can figure out is that the girl is not naked. I’m not in any way convinced her (their) behavior is even sexually explicit. It is possibly sexually suggestive to people inclined to look for such things.[/li][li]NO ONE IS BEING MOLESTED. [bolding removed-- this was in response to freedom’s post “CHILD MOLESTATION IS WRONG”][/li][li]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.[/li][li]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.[/li][li]…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.[/li][li]We don’t know where the money from this site ends up, or how much goes to the girl.[/li][li]This, to me, does not indicate a strict interpretation of exploitation or original intent of paying for college funds. [This is re to something I quoted, “Let’s just say that from her portion of the earnings, she could apply for medical school right now and not have to take out a loan,” [the mother of a girl] said.][/li][li]I’m comfortable with a person modelling and selling pictures of that person modelling. The end.[/li][li]Children can be models. This girl is modelling. Children can flirt. This girl is flirting.[/li][li]“Sexually suggestive” poses are just about anything when you already consider the model attractive. Apart from taking a shit, and even then!, most poses are pretty attractive.[/li][li]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.[/li][li][this behavior] most certainly is safe in safe contexts.[/li][li]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.[/li][li]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. \*\*[/li][li][I would say this is definitely bad…]if we knew that this girl was being subjected to child molesters. Instead, she being subjected to censored people and their deleted tasteless comments.[/li][li]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.[/li]_ **Here on the third page I make a point of concisely stating my assertations** _ [li]I don’t know whether or not the parents are informing their child of the situation.[/li][li]I do not know that they are upholding what I would consider to be good parenting standards.[/li][li]I do not know how much money the girl gets from this, or in what manner she is receiving it.[/li][li]I do not know the motivations of [all] the parents.[/li][li]I do know that children can be models.[/li][li]I do know that this child is modeling.[/li][li]I do know that child modeling is not fundamentally illegal.[/li][li]I am not prepared to condemn these actions or the parents themselves.[/li] **Return to post editing** [li]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.[/li][li]I fail to see that the girl can only assume her worth is if she is being “sexy.” [this is a comment about what a child will _necessarily_ take from the experience][/ol][/li][/quote] Now, some of these points were addressed (though I wasn’t satisfied with how some of them were) by other posters. So, I admit that some of your assertations did indeed address what I had made claims on, though that was basically by just asserting the claims you wanted instead of addressing the three pages of points I was making. \*\* TO ALL WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE\*\* In fact, in rereading that thread, I am even more unsatisfied with it now than I was when I went through it. So, I suggest this as a focus: Our goal is to come to a right/wrong conclusion. Since it is already legal (the sites are up), it remains the opponent’s job (as is the standard on this board, though I don’t like it that way) to prove their case as to why we should remove the legality; ie- prove it is wrong. I see no reason to say that one cannot use child molesters as part of that argument, though what exactly constitutes molestation was definitely an issue (unfortunately short lived, thanks in part to me). Pedophiles are not child molesters as a rule, unless you are prepared to back up that claim please stay away from it. So, to wit: if this is wrong, prove it, don’t just say it. Otherwise, the site is up, the parents are ok, and the kid is ok, and we can get back to some good America-bashing on Kyoto. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/9 "2001-08-02T19:03:28Z")
**Scylla** , I see your point, and I even agree that this thread is probably an evasion, but it’s certainly not against any “rules” for **erl** to do so. At least he hasn’t disengaged without comment, as many others tend to do when they get on the losing side of an exchange. Although **erl** could regain (IMHO) much respect by responding to your points 1 - 8 in the other thread, I think your attempt to bring that argument to _this_ thread is somewhat of a hijack. However, since my exchange with you is now bordering on a second hijack, I’ll shut up about it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/10 "2001-08-02T19:15:13Z")
I read the other thread, I read this thread, and I guess I’ll waste my breath: Legal does not make it right. For all of the reasons laid out in the fantastic posts by both Scylla and wring, it is WRONG. Given your previously posted ideas : There is no way I could PROVE to your satisfaction that it is wrong. In passing: the premature sexualization of young girls and boys does a great deal of harm to the kids, the twisted mind of certain adults, and to soceity in general. Now if you want to debate something: What is your view on the creation, distribution, and use of completely computer generated child pornography? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/11 "2001-08-02T19:25:08Z")
erl: That list of my “points” are not the ones I’ve been repeatedly asking you to respond to. If you’re confused on this issue, I’d be glad to repost them. Your list of 31 points contains the seeds of some intriguing thought, and I would be more than happy to respond to them provided you either answer my eight rebuttals, concede the points, or retract the original arguments. Finally I would refer you to my original offer a few posts ago. > [@](#): > > If you care to point out any rebuttal (with quotes please,) that you made to any point I made in that thread to which I did not respond (up to the 8 questions post,) I will gladly respond to them with sincere apologies for not having done so. > > Failing that I’d like a retraction of your accusation. Surely you’d agree that a poster is not required to respond to respond to every single point made by every single poster in a thread before he/she participates. That seems to be what you are requesting. Rather, when people address or question your points it is generally considered polite to answer them. That is what I have requested. I have offered to apologize and respond to any point you directed at me to which I have not responded. In any event you will note that your list of 31 points doesn’t bare any resemblance to my offer, which was rather specific, nor does it support your ealier accusation. I again await either support or retraction of that accusation as well. Nevertheless, I would be happy to answer those points if and when you do me the courtesy of addressing the 8 points I have repeatedly asked you to. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/12 "2001-08-02T19:30:23Z")
**erl** , I think your point # 1 goes to the heart of the matter. Your disinterest in the _context_ in which the pictures are purveyed is a critical ommission. What these parents are doing is morally indefensible because the express purpose of the site is to profit from the attention of people who, at minimum, want to fantasize about their child as a sexual object and who might _potentially_ want to act on those fantasies. -Sure, it’s legal. There’s a big difference between legal and moral. Should it be made illegal? Probably not, IMO. Should it be controlled, monitored and regulated, and should the parents be censured by their relatives and the community? Absolutely, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/13 "2001-08-02T20:17:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > Given your previously posted ideas : There is no way I could PROVE to your satisfaction that it is wrong. Actually, there is. If you did read the other thread you’d find I am, and I remain, uneasy about these sites. I cannot find a reason why I feel uneasy about these sites that stands up to reason. I am looking to see if others can do that for me. > [@](#): > > The premature sexualization of young girls and boys does a great deal of harm to the kids, the twisted mind of certain adults, and to soceity in general. Sex ed was taught in sixth grade when I was in elementary school. Is the state also acting immorally? > [@](#): > > What is your view on the creation, distribution, and use of completely computer generated child pornography? Tough sell. Cartoons, probably not a prob IMO. Computer generated pics could, even accidentally, bear a strong resemblence to real children, and so I don’t find a problem with making that illegal based on current laws about child pornography. **xen** , so then I ask you: if she was doing software reviews (as one site had) or selling the clothing she wore, is it then a good situation? You see, I haven’t truly changed the acts that are being performed, merely the context under which they are being performed. I find that the context, then, isn’t the core of the case. If you still feel it is, then please develop it further. You are not the only one who has mentioned it. **Scylla** , I am still considering replying to the remaining seven points in the other thread. What holds me back is the following (if telling you will get you to stop begging for a reply): you came into the fourth page of a debate thread spewing out blanket assertations and expressed no desire to back them up. Frankly, the only reason I even responded in the first place was because I felt that some of those accusations applied to me, and that they were false. Moreover, those comments really pissed me off. I, predictibly, flew off the handle. I do not react well to being named “evil.” I’m not asking you to respond here or even participate; this is merely a public forum. I have no “face” to “save” in the matter; my anger and resentment at your implications were clear enough in that thread. I merely asked that if you wanted to participate here, to please leave the issue behind. You have not done so. That is your choice. Right now, I have nothing more to say on the matter because I am still pissed. If that means you don’t participate until then **fine**. Don’t. I am not twisting your arm to post, and I’m not twisting it to prevent you from posting. If you continue to ask for a response you will find none from me at all, on any point even remotely related to this topic. **I am both still pissed and hurt at what you have said and I don’t want to comment about it more until I am not.** Clear? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/14 "2001-08-02T20:49:50Z")
erl: > [@](#): > > Scylla, I am still considering replying to the remaining seven points in the other thread. What holds me back is the following (if telling you will get you to stop begging for a reply): you came into the fourth page of a debate thread spewing out blanket assertations and expressed no desire to back them up. Once again this is false. You’ve made this assertion several times, and each time I have offered to both apologize for and respond to **any** request for “backing up” an assertion that I had made and failed to reply to. I requested specific examples of where I had failed to do so so that I might make amends. I also asked that if you were unwilling to provide such an example, that you then retract your statement. Not only have you failed to support this accusation. You have repeated it. I can no longer qualify this as an error or an oversight on your part, but must conclude that it is a lie. > [@](#): > > Frankly, the only reason I even responded in the first place was because I felt that some of those accusations applied to me, and that they were false. Seems reasonable. That is what debating is about. > [@](#): > > Moreover, those comments really pissed me off. Tough titty. If you choose to identify yourself with the term pedophile in all instances and usages, denying context that’s your own personal problem. It’s an unusual, and unconventional stance that could only possibly be adopted by one looking for trouble. Your problem. Not mine. > [@](#): > > I, predictibly, flew off the handle. Why predictably? Is it a habit of yours? > [@](#): > > I do not react well to being named “evil.” I did not name you. You chose to be “deliberately ambiguous” and masquerade as a pedophilic molestor. You named yourself and chose to identify with my terminology. Again, your problem, Bub. > [@](#): > > I’m not asking you to respond here or even participate; this is merely a public forum. Cool. I’m not asking yor permission. > [@](#): > > I have no “face” to “save” in the matter; my anger and resentment at your implications were clear enough in that thread. I merely asked that if you wanted to participate here, to please leave the issue behind. And seeing as you’ve chosen to bring me into this debate, I have chosen not to give you a free pass for your behavior and start again. I have no desire to go around in circles and expect you to address direct questions within the context of a debate. Your failure to do so is another item that calls into question your integrity as a debater. > [@](#): > > Right now, I have nothing more to say on the matter because I am still pissed. Well, be sure and let me know when Baby Snookums gets over his little tantrum. > [@](#): > > If that means you don’t participate until then fine. Don’t. I am not twisting your arm to post, and I’m not twisting it to prevent you from posting. I can’t imagine how you could do either. > [@](#): > > If you continue to ask for a response you will find none from me at all, on any point even remotely related to this topic. I was reasonably certain that you were incapable of honest debate in the first place, so I really haven’t expected much of a reply. That’s why after going around in circles with you, I sought to leave. “But I like to play” you responded. “Very Well” I responded and layed out a very basic debating rule: I respond to your points, and you respond to mine. I then answered your post and did you the courtesy of labelling the points I expected you not to ignore. Surprise surprise. You ignored them. To do otherwise would be to have to admit errors, mistakes, and false accusations. You don’t want to do that. > [@](#): > > I am both still pissed and hurt at what you have said and I don’t want to comment about it more until I am not. Clear? No. I don’t believe you. Somebody who’s pissed doesn’t say “But I like to play!” so I don’t think you really are. Secondly, your reasons for being “pissed” are self-manufactured, so the only person you should be pissed at it yourself. Thirdly, getting pissed isn’t an appropriate excuse or an argument. Fourth and final, it’ws the debating forum of a message board. If you are going to get all pissed off for days on end over someone else’s comments you probably shouldn’t be here. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/15 "2001-08-02T21:18:12Z")
Ok. I have responded to your “8” points. Due to your post above, I wish I hadn’t done so and let the matter rest, but it was already done anyway by the time I came here. I will not respond to anything said in your above post. Start a post about me if you want, anywhere else, or be ignored. The choice is, as always, yours. Why, oh, why I even bothered responding is because I think you might have some actual things to say that can be both presented in a non-offensive manner and defended in some way that I can understand even if I don’t agree with them. I hope I was not wrong, because otherwise I just wasted a collossal amount of time today. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/16 "2001-08-02T21:22:40Z")
Thank you for replying. I appreciate it. I am content to consider the matter a closed issue. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/17 "2001-08-02T21:44:59Z")
Scylla, Although I strongly agree with you that children who have sexual contact with predatory adults are likely to experience horrible psychiatric effects later in childhood and later in life, I disagree about your statements that children do not have sexuality. Most adults who did not grow up in an environment of sexual abuse will probably report some level of sexuality as a child as they approached the age of eight or nine. As a child, I remember wanting to at least see the opposite sex’s genitals, played “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine” with a girl two year older than me (8 and 10), had my first kiss at 7, and remember talking about sex with my peers over summer, as long as trading sexual jokes and misinformation with my peers. This was more than curiosity, I had grown up in an environment that did not make sex strictly taboo, and I knew, “what was down there.” I was never molested as a child and never encouraged to engage in sexual activity by any adult. To suggest that children do not have sexualities is frankly a little absurd. Honestly, tell me that you never “played doctor” or asked to see another child’s genitals as a child, or never held hands or kissed a girlfriend as a child. Additionally, your lumping of 15 and 16 year olds having sex with 25 year olds with 8 year olds and 25 year olds is a little absurd. I am not suggesting that the former relationships are in any way appropriate, but they are not nearly on the same level as the latter. As far as a definition of pedophilia, I think that the American Psychological Association’s definition as an attraction to pre-pubescent children (typically less than 13 years old) is the most appropriate definition that manages to distinguish between what is essentially statutory rape and raping a child. Finally, a seperate rant regarding the link in the OP that probably belongs in the pit: “I catch myself saying things like, 'Oh, honey, hold your stomach in,”’ says Danielle’s mom, Nona Darling. “I know I probably shouldn’t.” WHAT A FREAKIN’ GENIUS! No wonder you kid has an eating disorder. Honestly, if you think your child is a tad overweight, for god’s sake, encorage them to take up a sport or go hiking or biking with them over the weekend. The problem, IMHO, is not over eating, it is under exercising. Rather than encourage your child to gain an ED, teach them to exercise for their health, not their appearance. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/18 "2001-08-02T22:51:47Z")
**threemae** , some intriguing points. A few questions, though. > [@](#): > > As far as a definition of pedophilia, I think that the American Psychological Association’s definition as an attraction to pre-pubescent children (typically less than 13 years old) is the most appropriate definition that manages to distinguish between what is essentially statutory rape and raping a child. Some links I provided on the fifth page of the other debate show that this is not the case. The APA’s most recent release that I found considered a person a pedophile only if they both acted on their desires AND that caused them undue emotional stress, which is a terrible definition for the purposes of this, and the previous, thread; hence why I am gunshy about using the word. Its a semantic sand trap, and carries way too much emotional baggage to be used objectively in a debate. Anyway, some more points. > [@](#): > > Most adults who did not grow up in an environment of sexual abuse will probably report some level of sexuality as a child as they approached the age of eight or nine. Do you have a site for this? Not that I doubt it; it certainly matches my own experience and the experience of people I’ve known. However, having had three friends who were victims of sexual abuse I can say that they got an idea about sex around that age, too. Though they were abused that way when they were younger (one friend at six) she didn’t know the details of the abuse until the age range you mention. I might note that this girl was also the first girl I had sex with; she had her issues resolved regarding the abuse as soon as she got out of that household. She continues to be a productive member of society. That article was a mess, wasn’t it? Just goes to show you, kids can learn quite a bit on their own. It takes an active parent to make sure that the right lessons get learned from situations. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2001, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/19 "2001-08-03T15:33:55Z")
**erl** , here’s an illustration of how context changes the ethics of a situation: Context A Pretty pre-teen Tiffany models for a clothing company; her fashion portraits are prominently displayed throughout the local Fash-o-Rama store in the Mall (located conveniently between _PeekaBooks for Tots_ and _Spencer’s Gifts_). Because Tiffany looks nice in the fashions portrayed, sales are good at Fash-o-Rama, and she is placed under contract by the clothing manufacturer. Tiffany’s mom, who has aggressively pursued such a contract, places Tiffany’s profits into a college fund for the girl. Tiffany starts a fan web page, where she reviews software and has a chat room to speak with other girls about fashion, school and popular music. Context B Pretty pre-teen Tiffany models the same clothing; her portraits are prominently displayed in a store featuring similar pictures of other pretty little girls. The store is located conveniently on a downtown strip featuring nightclubs, topless bars and Adult Novelty shops. Signs outside the store advertise “The hottest little girls you’ve seen!!!” For a fee, customers can buy “the actual outfit you see Tiffany wearing!!!” (laundered, $300.00; unlaundered $350.00) Tiffany’s mom puts the profits in a college fund for the girl, and starts a web page where fans of Tiffany can suggest outfits and poses, and post messages for each other about how li’l Tiff makes 'em so happy. Please tell me you see the distinction between using a child’s image to sell clothing for other kids and using that same image to sell titillation and fantasy to creepy adults. Tiffany has done nothing wrong in either case, but the mom in Context B is a venal fool and a poor mother. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2001, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/20 "2001-08-03T15:42:44Z")
**xen** , I am aware that the context does change the way we look at the situation, but the charges leveled against the context was that _the girl was being exploited_. In all contexts, if we assume a minor cannot consent, then she is being exploited, no? My problem, you see, isn’t with the exploitation tack itself, but that the exploitation only applies _in this context_. Hell, having a child do housework for you is exploiting the child. In that case, though, some posters mentioned that the child learned valuable lessons from that work; and so the debate went on to lessons that must necessarily be learned from a specific context. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637.md?page=2)