# 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:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**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, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/21 "2001-08-03T18:22:22Z")
Well, I agree that in both cases the child is being somewhat exploited; however, the ethical difference lies in the _means_ of exploitation. And you’re perfectly correct that whether the child learns anything productive is entirely dependent on the parenting. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2001, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/22 "2001-08-04T02:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > And you’re perfectly correct that whether the child learns anything productive is entirely dependent on the parenting. Soooo… Is it your opinion that the girl can, through the aid of her parents, learn some lessons or at least avoid _bad_ lessons from participating in this affair? As well, is it your opinion that this girl is being “obviously” whored out? What would be the minimum amount of context-changing you’d require to set your ethical concerns at ease? ---
**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 4, 2001, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/23 "2001-08-04T02:36:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Is it your opinion that the girl can, through the aid of her parents, learn some lessons or at least avoid _bad_ lessons from participating in this affair? > > As well, is it your opinion that this girl is being “obviously” whored out? What would be the minimum amount of context-changing you’d require to set your ethical concerns at ease? Answer to first question: Yes. Just as it is possible to learn good lessons from being mugged. Answer to second question: No. Not “whored” out. I thought we agreed she was being “exploited.” Her _image_ has been pandered, not her body. Answer to third question: Well, changing the web site to a little girl’s vanity site rather than a source of income and not soliciting or responding to the “fan” outfit/posing requests would do nicely. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2001, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/24 "2001-08-04T16:14:57Z")
I see. So your conclusion is that parents can use their children’s beuty to sell something, so long as they aren’t using the child’s beuty to sell the child’s beuty. Interesting analysis. I can’t say I agree. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2001, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/25 "2001-08-04T16:18:03Z")
**Beuty**? What the hell happened to the “a’s”??? ---
**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 5, 2001, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/26 "2001-08-05T01:12:19Z")
> [@](#): > > I see. So your conclusion is that parents can use their children’s be **a** uty to sell something, so long as they aren’t using the child’s be **a** uty to sell the child’s be **a** uty. > > Interesting analysis. I can’t say I agree. > > ( **a** ’s provided by xeno -I had a few lying around…) If all they were selling was the child’s beauty, that would be cool, **erl**. That’s what models _sell_. What those parents are doing is selling the image of their beautiful child to people who fantasize about sexual contact with beautiful innocents. And if it were just artwork of anonymous and fictitious beautiful innocents, it would only be Very Specifically Creepy, but this is far worse, as they are calling attention to _a real, named child_ in that way. Because it is via the internet, the parents seem to feel insulated from what they’re doing. I suspect they would never even consider parading their daughters in front of the web page fans in real life. I see little ethical difference here, and I think the distinction between posing for internet pix and posing in front of a group is most likely unclear to at least some of these girls. To be fair to your question, perhaps mine is more of an emotional response than a reasoned one. I don’t seem to be getting the ethical problems (that I see pretty clearly) across to you, so this might be the case. I suppose I should bow out of this discussion, as I don’t seem to be persuading you, and you are certainly unlikely to change my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2001, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/27 "2001-08-05T01:50:31Z")
Well, I’m not interested in convincing anyone of anything; I’m interested in understanding what makes this case special to others. Now you say it isn’t even her selling her appearance, but now _who_ the audience is? Hmm. ---
**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 5, 2001, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637/28 "2001-08-05T16:02:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Now you say it isn’t even her selling her appearance, but now _who_ the audience is? > > Hmm. **erl** , I’ve _been_ saying exactly that. To quote myself from earlier in the thread: > [@](#): > > 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. The intended audience **is** the deciding ethical factor. The parents of teen & preteen clothing models have, as their intended audience, other parents of teens and preteens, and the teens/preteens themselves. (Or, more directly, the modeling agency and advertising execs who choose the models.) In stark contrast, the parents we’ve been discussing are publishing their daughters’ pictures so that the audience can sexually objectify the children, something we would all probably agree was unethical were the transaction direct and physical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teen-pre-teen-modeling-part-deux/74637.md?page=1)