*Possibly triggery*
 

A child in a swimsuit - not sexual.

A child in a string bikini with padding in the chest area and a thong back on the bottoms? Not. So. Much.


When I separate the issue and look at the child's right to be a child, I get angry thinking about the child having to swim in a fucking jogging suit because some pervert might see them.
I don't think that's the answer.

I actually went to a private water park one time and they had a sign up in the kiddie area that said "You MUST have a child swimming in this area to remain in this area". I asked one of the people at the snackbar what caused them to place that sign and she said that there were a couple of pedophiles who had come to the swimming area to "take pictures and hang out"....and Im not fucking kidding when I say that I got my drinks and went back to the kiddie area (where my best friend and I had taken her boys for the day) and there was a woman who had stripped the wet bathing suits off of her children (who appeared to be no more than 2 or 3 years old) and was re-dressing them right out there in the open.

I don't think people should have to wear head to toe cover to keep from "enticing" a Pedophile. Not at all. I think Pedophiles should not be allowed in water parks, schools, skating rinks, malls, etc. or other places where children are generally present. Im WAY black and white on that issue and realize that I would much rather err on the side of taking away the rights of a Pedophile than subjecting even one child to abuse.

I see a distinct sexualization of children in a lot of clothing, games, media, and toys that are available today and I think that they *do* play at least a small part in the idea of "children as sexual objects". Not saying that a Pedophile isnt responsible or that they wont offend or molest a child in a jogging suit but Im more thinking about underage teenage girls who appear to be much older or because someone might perceive them as more sexually available because of the clothing they wear than they actually are.
It's not *their* fault that the world sexualizes them.

I do think that parents and society at large have a responsibility to keep them safe and to make their youth as available to them as possible.

As a volunteer for the largest non-profit anti-predator organization, I just want to say that it would be wise and responsible to delete this entire thread as it most certainly will come up in searches, not only by pedophiles but by trained volunteers who perform searches as a means of policing and cleaning up the internet. Some, including law enforcement officials, use highly sophisticated software to do this.

Link

A word of warning to those sharing images and/or downloading them to their computers or uploading them to remote storage sites:

"Many computer users do not realize that everything they do while online can be traced by police armed with the appropriate software. Even images that users believe have been permanently erased from their computers can be found by computer forensic specialists."

Also, this thread (if not read properly) can promote the popular myth that queer people are pedophiles. Pedophiles employ the use of sarcasm on their sites as well in order to have the public conversations they want to have.

**I'd also like to point out that users who choose to include infant children in avatars, signature photos, or even your galleries (wonder how many pedos will attempt to join this site after the most recent thread topic and images?) are putting those children at risk. It is highly irresponsible.

I'd also like to point out that two of the other thread titles on the main page right now are 'For My babygirl' and 'The Daddy Girl Dynamic House'. Folks here know what those threads/topics are all about, but anti-queer readers and the 'homo=pedo' readers and the child predators out there likely do not. Be careful about what you may be inadvertently promoting.

Perhaps They Should Just Remove the Whole Damn Site.
 

omg HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Further conversations on this subject shall call he who must not be named: Voldemart.

Or better yet, Wonderschlong.

I think Hudson makes some good points.

At the same time, I think this is a topic very much worth discussing.

I don't think sexualized images of children lead directly to pedophilia.

I do think the messages conveyed in that sort of advertising may equate to a sort of tacit societal nod in the direction of child objectification, exploitation and abuse.

Jesus H. I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said they were two different topics.

There are different reasons for one and the other.

If we're done talking about Voldemort, than yeah, I think the sexualization of children is sexist and a sick sort of 'grooming' of children (girls), and I don't put it too far from the kind of 'grooming' that's done by cults like the FLDS. It's just a grooming that's done on a larger scale and condoned by this society as 'right'.

It's preparing girls to be objectified and sexualized and breeders. It's preparing girls to always find fault with their bodies, and to never think they're worthy or capable of more than being a glorified housekeeper and child bearer. It's preparing girls to get ready for the fact that you're only 'worth' something if men find you attractive....and if you're 'pleasing' and 'catering' and 'caretakery' enough...and you don't mind playing second fiddle, because whatever boys do is much more exciting and important.

I find it completely disturbing on a number of levels.


Dylan

can you puh-lease refrain from using the word "breeders"? it is so highly offensive and rude to those of us here that have given birth Dylan.

Very good point to bring to light actually
But,
The only way they would actually take notes and create an issue if if child porn or something to that degree was present and being shared.

The only types of pictures being shown here are adds.
Gross ones but yet still legal.

And no one is promoting any type of sick actions on here..

So this thread is fine.

I swear you're just looking to start an argument today. You're completely nitpicking everything today.

There is a very specific reason I used the term breeders...as in one who breeds. Not in the straight people are breeders way.

Girls are literally groomed in this country to be baby breeders and to reproduce. They're taught from the youngest age that making babies makes them 'worth something'. They're groomed to 'take care of' those babies from before they can even speak.

Yes, breeder is exactly the word I wanted. Because, there's obviously something wrong with women who don't want to or haven't had children. This same line of thinking promotes the idea that (since women are only good for sex and reproduction) that women don't have the right to choose whether or not they get pregnant/give birth.

Women are often judged on what kind of 'mothers' they are...not what kind of individual they are.

And when QUEER women who don't want to reproduce or who don't want to use a man to reproduce are seen as not as 'loving women', but instead as hating men.

Breeder is EXACTLY the word I wanted, and if ALL you have to say about that whole post is that I used that word, I feel like you're not into having a conversation about the actual topic. You're just looking to have an argument.

You've been nitpicking posts since I stepped into this thread this morning, and honestly, do you feel like having a conversation about the topic or having a conversation about semantics? Because I'm interested in the former, but not the latter.


Dylan

I didn't mean to nitpick.
I just really get my feelings hurt by that word.
Sorry. I'll go to my corner now and come back unmedicated tomorrow.
You know I love you.

I gotta say Dylan, you using the word like that is not really cool with me either. I ain't a fucking cow..

Just because it's ok in your sentences does not make it ok to go around calling it that it's offensive to those of thus who have given birth to our children.

sorry for the derail

It's also offensive to use that towards a woman, it's offensive, we have been having conversations for weeks now about offensive terms. How about you show some of that empathy to that, like we all want to any kind of term.

What about images of adult women who are made to look childlike?

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/...5/kenzie-5.jpg

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/...5/kenzie-1.jpg

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/.../image0011.jpg

That was an awesome point.

The Gender ADs Project


Background: In recent years the disturbing images of objectified children and young people have increased in popular culture worlds, particularly in popular ads. Seductive clothing designs are very commonly marketed at young girls (Evans 1993), including a thong for babies (see #23). The Ads: In addition to the troubling images in 8 and 9, we find that adult women are infantilized, as seen in ads 3, 4, 16 and 18. One of the most disturbing ads yet, is #20-it depicts the sex tourism industry. A disturbing sets of ads is the Lee Australia campaign, using a Lolita theme (#s 32-40). A story about this campaign and its been deemed acceptable by an advertising board can be read here. Image 43 is also offensive and makes light of the major problems that all societies face in terms of the exploitation of children. Here is a good tip sheet from the Media Awareness Network related to discussing advertising with kids. Discussion Questions: (1) Why are children the subject of advertising? Is there any justifiable reason for this focus? (2) How can you explain the connection of women and their infantilization (such as in #s 3, 4, 16, 18)? (3) How can parents and concerned citizens respond to these disturbing examples of advertising?

oh boy.

:tea:

Since we've had a visit from Voldemort, Nat's post reminds me of "V for Vendetta" and the pedophile cleric ... sorry for the derailment, it seems to have become de rigueur on this page.

I am uncomfortable as well with ads such as Nat posted. I am not fond of infantilism.

I confess to having skimmed, but not thoroughly read, the majority of this thread. As has been noted, this topic can be triggering for someone with my history. If you received the JC Penny or Sears catalogue, read popular magazines, or watched television in the late 1960's through the early-mid 1970's you would have seen images of me. Yes, I have a history of childhood sexual abuse. More to the point, I have a history of childhood modeling and performance. This is a bad, bad combination.

Do pedophiles relentlessly find ways to sexualize the most innocuous images? Of course. Do I believe that the business of sexualizing children in the media fuels pedophilia? You bet. This is a chicken-and-egg problem which no one, including me, can hope to sort out well enough to protect children from those determined to do them harm. I can, however, speak with authority about the effects that my history of being professionally sexualized as a child had on me personally.

One thing that we must never forget is that the media is big business. Image making is about money making. Girls who worked as I did were hired to sell product. Print ads, commercials, movies and television shows, as well as live performance, are all very expensive to produce. Every time my agent sent me to interview or audition for any of the above there would have been plenty of money at stake for the producers/clients. I can tell you from experience that when middle-aged men line up a row of little girls and choose the prettiest one to get the job, (lesson learned: the prettiest girl always gets the most money), each girl in the room experienced repeated and profound damage. These messages are far too harsh for grown women to absorb well. Imagine how a child of 6 experiences that message, delivered with callous explicitness by men who are primarily concerned with selling product when they deliver it. Take my word for it, it's no easier to be the girl who gets the job than the girl who does not. Those of us whose self-hood had already been breached by sexual abuse were even more susceptible to injuries to our sense of self worth. The more damaged a child has been, the more susceptible they are to future abuse.

The above example is one of the most obvious ways that professional children can be injured. There are just so many varied ways for professional children to get all messed up. Kids who are making money from their image are never, EVER emotionally developed enough to escape a really bizarre kind of damage in the process. Yes, they are earning good money. The more they earn, the harder it becomes to reject the bad lessons they are learning in the process.

In case you're wondering, it was not my choice to be a professional child. It was something my mother wanted me to do. And I never saw a penny of my money. My mother took it all. So, yeah. I've been sorting out some complicated issues. It's been a long road.

I have worked like a dog to regain my equilibrium as a woman in a world that has not changed very much in terms of how girls and women are valued. The girl that best fits our culture's narrow standard of beauty most closely, still gets the most money. Men still deliver that message as callously as they did when my livelihood depended upon their judgement of my image. I'm happy to say that it has been many years since my sense of self worth hinged on the approval of others. These days I can usually refrain from expressing my desire to eviscerate men who expect me to care how they view me. It has been a looong road.

I hope that anyone who knows a parent contemplating a foray into modeling or acting for their child will discourage it. It is a very unhealthy environment.

i have 'toddlers and tiaras' on the dvr. i watch it (sometimes) because i can't believe that *those* kind of moms/parents are out there--and yet, the dvr is filled with them.