Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?

[SuperFemme]

This thing is that there is not really statistical data to back up the Queers are Pedophiles thing.

I don't think the same can be said about sexualized children becoming victims of sexual abuse.

It's a red herring.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

This thing is that there is not really statistical data to back up the Queers are Pedophiles thing.

I don't think the same can be said about sexualized children becoming victims of sexual abuse.

It's a red herring.

I don't disagree with you at all. Has the xtian right EVER need actual statistical data?

I didn't read Julie as disagreeing with anything you're saying here (or anything Snow said).

I have to agree with Julie that pedophiles would exist whether or not children are sexualized (which is what I read her as saying)

And I agree, it's a red herring...so I don't understand why anyone's making a big deal about the (obvious) queers/pedophiles comment.


Dylan

[The_Lady_Snow]

I don't see where a BIG DEAL was made....

but ok...

I still think the images are a stepping stone to these fuckers getting off when they can't find someone or an image on the internets.

*shrugs*

[SuperFemme]

do you think it is my head injury or the cancer that makes me agree AND disagree with everyone lately? i feel so bi-polar.

[tuffboi29]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

do you think it is my head injury or the cancer that makes me agree AND disagree with everyone lately? i feel so bi-polar.

(I, too, find myself in conflicting feeling on this regard.)

After reading through this thread last night, I really didn't think I would come back in to view anymore. Alas, I found myself thinking on this subject hard.

I did some research on the subject, and came to my own conclusions on this matter.

It is a proven fact that adds of this sort do stimulate pedephiles in a sexual manner.

Now with that being said; I am left with a few remaining questions...
#1. If it is the case where these images DO stimulate the responses of pedephiles, HOW CAN it be legal, let alone ALLOWED?
#2. Why is it that stores geared tword lower-income families have smut items in their clothing selections for children, when statistically speaking, most victims are FROM lower-income families? Coincidence? I'm leaning twords, NO. Or, should that be a "Hell NO!"?
Now, my most important question...
#3. How can ANY adult, in their right mind, think to make an add, in which a child is put into a sexual light? Is there something about the person developing the add we should know about? Maybe that individual needs to be checked for pedephile tendencies.

Once again, these are just my opinions.

[Soon]

I just googled *pedophilia and media images of children* to find any research/evidence on this subject, and this thread is the first result.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I just googled *pedophilia and media images of children* to find any research/evidence on this subject, and this thread is the first result.

And that is why I use Bing vs. Google. It is much more reliable.

I too, Googled "Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media...1130-k178.html
(i guess dylan didn't read this)

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Ped...e_Internet.pdf
(the internet which carries images of over sexualized children and pedophiles. relevant.)


http://americansfortruth.com/issues/pedophiliapederasty
(dylan approved)

http://www.etherzone.com/2010/mako011110.shtml
(a tidbit about a society where pornography and obscenity flourish and where children are sexualized.)

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431 (this one is all about us gay pedophiles)

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/ppitv.htm
(this one may be stretching it a bit, but did come up in the first few links of search)


Imagine my surprise when the planet didn't even show up on a search.

Thank you Dylan, for educating me on "relevance". I can die happy now.

[Lady Pamela]

Originally Posted by tuffboi29

(I, too, find myself in conflicting feeling on this regard.)

After reading through this thread last night, I really didn't think I would come back in to view anymore. Alas, I found myself thinking on this subject hard.

I did some research on the subject, and came to my own conclusions on this matter.

It is a proven fact that adds of this sort do stimulate pedephiles in a sexual manner.

Now with that being said; I am left with a few remaining questions...
#1. If it is the case where these images DO stimulate the responses of pedephiles, HOW CAN it be legal, let alone ALLOWED?
#2. Why is it that stores geared tword lower-income families have smut items in their clothing selections for children, when statistically speaking, most victims are FROM lower-income families? Coincidence? I'm leaning twords, NO. Or, should that be a "Hell NO!"?
Now, my most important question...
#3. How can ANY adult, in their right mind, think to make an add, in which a child is put into a sexual light? Is there something about the person developing the add we should know about? Maybe that individual needs to be checked for pedephile tendencies.

Once again, these are just my opinions.

In reply:

The almighty dollar is at stake if they choose diffrently...It will not reach as many people so to speak, if they choose to change the clothing.
Sucks but that is how they as well as media think.
That is one area that the saying" Money is the root of all evil applies"
Not true with everyone though

This all will change if people find their voices and start speaking out.
Together United!
Then things can turn around eventually.

As for it being legal:

This is because some people tread on the middle line of our rights.
Also, some only see fame and never take time to truely look at the other sides. This happens alot. Not all people are doers and thinkers. Some follow what they have been taught.
Alot of people simply work for fame or more money because this means success to them.

As for the stores:
Those on a limited buget are forced to shop in certain places true.
This is why they do this.
Same as they hike up prices on things we can't live without..everyone.
Such as diapers, baby foods, etc

But those families also have other options as well...
Alot of people in my area trade coupons, pass down clothes, shop thrift shops, garage sales and buy only what they like and can afford...Kindof a silient boycott of such actions.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by tuffboi29

(I, too, find myself in conflicting feeling on this regard.)

After reading through this thread last night, I really didn't think I would come back in to view anymore. Alas, I found myself thinking on this subject hard.

I did some research on the subject, and came to my own conclusions on this matter.

It is a proven fact that adds of this sort do stimulate pedephiles in a sexual manner.

Now with that being said; I am left with a few remaining questions...
#1. If it is the case where these images DO stimulate the responses of pedephiles, HOW CAN it be legal, let alone ALLOWED?
#2. Why is it that stores geared tword lower-income families have smut items in their clothing selections for children, when statistically speaking, most victims are FROM lower-income families? Coincidence? I'm leaning twords, NO. Or, should that be a "Hell NO!"?
Now, my most important question...
#3. How can ANY adult, in their right mind, think to make an add, in which a child is put into a sexual light? Is there something about the person developing the add we should know about? Maybe that individual needs to be checked for pedephile tendencies.

Once again, these are just my opinions.

And here's an issue I have swirling around my brain

Ok, so kids in swimsuits turn on pedophiles.

Ok, so half dressed women turn on rapists

Do we take away the ads, and make society in general responsible for the sick minds, or do we make the sick minds responsible for their own brains/actions?

Now, again, I'm in no way condoning the sexualization of children, however, I (me,me,me) don't see a child in a swimsuit and think gross thoughts...now do I think most people here think gross thoughts. It's not the child's fault. It's not the parent's fault. It's no one's fault but the pedophile. And, if we take away the child in a swimsuit, does that cure the pedophile? No.

So, what? We take away all of the pictures of half dressed women and swimsuited children? We cover up all women and children to 'protect' them?

Isn't that what they do in Iran? And how many people here have a problem with the way they treat women in Iran?


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Dylan

And here's an issue I have swirling around my brain

Ok, so kids in swimsuits turn on pedophiles.

Ok, so half dressed women turn on rapists

Do we take away the ads, and make society in general responsible for the sick minds, or do we make the sick minds responsible for their own brains/actions?

Now, again, I'm in no way condoning the sexualization of children, however, I (me,me,me) don't see a child in a swimsuit and think gross thoughts...now do I think most people here think gross thoughts. It's not the child's fault. It's not the parent's fault. It's no one's fault but the pedophile. And, if we take away the child in a swimsuit, does that cure the pedophile? No.

So, what? We take away all of the pictures of half dressed women and swimsuited children? We cover up all women and children to 'protect' them?

Isn't that what they do in Iran? And how many people here have a problem with the way they treat women in Iran?


Dylan

So.

What is it exactly you are saying?

I am not really sure how this reads.

From my *Me* place here is my summation (of the topic):

Pedophiles will be Pedophile, regardless of the state of dress of the victims.

Take away the over-sexualized children and you've still got pedophiles.

Remove Pedophiles from the equation.

Practice good parenting. Let your children be children. Whether or not a six year old in a thong & padded bra attracts abuse, a six year old and a thong/padded bra don't go together.

Work on making your children comfortable with their bodies, with who they are and let them be kids.

sex and children do not go together, whatever the reason.

that is all.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I don't see where a BIG DEAL was made....

but ok...

I still think the images are a stepping stone to these fuckers getting off when they can't find someone or an image on the internets.

*shrugs*

I don't disagree with you at all.

But didn't you also say your family member used the Sears catalog?

Pedophiles aren't going to stop being pedophiles just because we take little kids outta skimpy clothes.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the sexualization of (predominantly female) children. I think it's completely gross.


I Really Don't Think Anyone Disagrees With What You're Saying,
Dylan

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by Dylan

I don't disagree with you at all.

But didn't you also say your family member used the Sears catalog?

Pedophiles aren't going to stop being pedophiles just because we take little kids outta skimpy clothes.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the sexualization of (predominantly female) children. I think it's completely gross.


I Really Don't Think Anyone Disagrees With What You're Saying,
Dylan

That I did...

When he wasn't chasing me around the fucking house.

[Lady Pamela]

Originally Posted by Dylan

I don't disagree with you at all.

But didn't you also say your family member used the Sears catalog?

Pedophiles aren't going to stop being pedophiles just because we take little kids outta skimpy clothes.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the sexualization of (predominantly female) children. I think it's completely gross.


I Really Don't Think Anyone Disagrees With What You're Saying,
Dylan

You are correct in the fact it won't stop the twisted sick people from being just that...
But

It will stop exposer to entice them everytime they turn around.
It will atleast slow the reactions because it isn't being promoted everyday
It will also perhaps save one or more children or youth from having to endure a lifetime of hell.

It is true that they may find resources elsewhere
But to take it out of the lime light will definately slow it down at the very least.

They have tests they run on offenders now which prove that magazines,pictures of children in risky clothes, etc
Excite them.
They are using this more and more to determine the type of petifile these people are once the are caught.

Those tests all by themselves prove that when shown a pic...The body reacts...And in a sick mind..They react in a sick fashion.

In my opinion

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Greyson

I have never jumped into Julie's online posting. I know she is a full grown adult woman and can handle herself. I am going to comment now because I do have real time exposure to Julie because we have been dating for almost 18 months now. I met Julie when she was at the beginning of a very contentious divorce and that legal matter is still unresolved.

Why am I spelling such personal matters out here in a post? Because what you don't know nor should you have had any reason to know, is that Julie's soon to be ex-husband stalks her postings and mine on both this site and the Dash site. He attempts to enter some of the posts made by both of us into the public court record of this pending divorce.

Julie did not ask me to make this post. I am doing this on my own volition. I do not want her ex to in any way misunderstand, take out of context, what was posted here by Julie. I have seen Julie with her daughter on a very regular basis. Julie does not condone pedophilia. Nor does she think it is okay for children to dress in a provocative manner.

I believe some of Julie's posting may have been taken out of context. IMO it is easy to do when all communication is purely in written form. I also know that some of us here, are survivors of some sort of childhood sexual abuse. I know for me, I sometimes get very triggered when I perceive even the slightest condoning of using children, male or female as sexual objects in any way. My perceptions can push my buttons big time.

Please, you do not have to agree with me or Julie and our views. Again, I am attempting to be very clear that Julie does not parent her daughter in any way that condones pedophilia or any other illegal and damaging behavior that would hurt her daughter.

I don't think there is any way that anyone could read any of Ms. Julies posts and for a hot second think that she condones children as sexual objects.

Nothing she said even comes close to that.

Conversely, as somebody who has gone through a very ugly custody battle? I'd like to remind you that what you post here is public. Because of that it's admissible. Proceed accordingly.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by Greyson

I have never jumped into Julie's online posting. I know she is a full grown adult woman and can handle herself. I am going to comment now because I do have real time exposure to Julie because we have been dating for almost 18 months now. I met Julie when she was at the beginning of a very contentious divorce and that legal matter is still unresolved.

Why am I spelling such personal matters out here in a post? Because what you don't know nor should you have had any reason to know, is that Julie's soon to be ex-husband stalks her postings and mine on both this site and the Dash site. He attempts to enter some of the posts made by both of us into the public court record of this pending divorce.

Julie did not ask me to make this post. I am doing this on my own volition. I do not want her ex to in any way misunderstand, take out of context, what was posted here by Julie. I have seen Julie with her daughter on a very regular basis. Julie does not condone pedophilia. Nor does she think it is okay for children to dress in a provocative manner.

I believe some of Julie's posting may have been taken out of context. IMO it is easy to do when all communication is purely in written form. I also know that some of us here, are survivors of some sort of childhood sexual abuse. I know for me, I sometimes get very triggered when I perceive even the slightest condoning of using children, male or female as sexual objects in any way. My perceptions can push my buttons big time.

Please, you do not have to agree with me or Julie and our views. Again, I am attempting to be very clear that Julie does not parent her daughter in any way that condones pedophilia or any other illegal and damaging behavior that would hurt her daughter.

I don't believe anyone was saying julie is a bad parent or one that condones pedophilia.

Snow

who knows about custody battles and such

PS

Does this mean we can't ever have a discussion with julie again??? I don't get you coming in here I really don't.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I gotta add after reading the rep notes..

The ex isn't gonna come after julie cause of her BFP postings, and all that, it's gonna be the fact she is with some queer.

I know this for the fact my ex husband tries that shit all the time. His beef is the fact she is in your bed..

Sucks but it's true

[IrishGrrl]

As a parent of a daughter, I also found it very difficult to find clothes for her to wear. My rule was the shorts had to be no shorter than 2 inches above the knee, shorts under skirts, and when raising her arms, her belly wasnt allowed to show. This was often done by buying clothes that were a size or two bigger. She wasnt allowed to wear those tiny high heels for kids, (except her princess pair she got and only around the house) I went balistic when she would go to friends houses and put make up on at age 6. When she went to live with her dad for awhile at age 10, his gf taught her how to shave her legs, and when I got pissed off, and asked why he would let her do that, he said.."because it's cute!" Jeez. Then her aunt took her to pierce her ears at age 11. I didnt appreciate that either.

Recently I saw an article about the Bratz company selling padded training bras at walmart.
Gross.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by IrishGrrl

As a parent of a daughter, I also found it very difficult to find clothes for her to wear. My rule was the shorts had to be no shorter than 2 inches above the knee, shorts under skirts, and when raising her arms, her belly wasnt allowed to show. This was often done by buying clothes that were a size or two bigger. She wasnt allowed to wear those tiny high heels for kids, (except her princess pair she got and only around the house) I went balistic when she would go to friends houses and put make up on at age 6. When she went to live with her dad for awhile at age 10, his gf taught her how to shave her legs, and when I got pissed off, and asked why he would let her do that, he said.."because it's cute!" Jeez. Then her aunt took her to pierce her ears at age 11. I didnt appreciate that either.

Recently I saw an article about the Bratz company selling padded training bras at walmart.
Gross.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Here's an article on this

http://www.feministing.com/archives/005685.html

Yeah my girls....

No way would they ever get these, nor my future grand kids...


http://community.feministing.com/200...irls-bras.html