Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?

[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.

[Martina]

It's not just about attracting pedophiles. Making girls feel like they are going to get attention because they look sexual is not healthy for them.

That's going to happen eventually. But it should happen when they choose it and when they are genuinely interested in that kind of attention.

Children are more sexual than we give them credit for. i am not for squelching their interest in their sexual selves.

i am against having them VALUE themselves largely because they are sexually attractive. That's damaging to them.

There is research that shows that athletics raises girls' self-esteem. i think it's because it allows them to be physical and in touch with their bodies in a way that is directly pleasing, that is not about someone ELSE'S attention.

Making girls' self-esteem dependent on the attention they get from strangers, on how they look, and not just that, on how they look when made up -- those aren't lessons we want young folks taking to heart.

It's great to play with make-up. But if kids are doing that on their own, they do not come out looking like Little Miss Massachusetts. Has anyone seen those TV shows? Those kids go through torture to come out looking like that. At the very least, it's got to be massively boring. As much as they tell their moms and dads they want to do this stuff, when you look at their faces as they are waiting to be sprayed with tanning stuff or have a wig fitted or are practicing the same dance steps the zillionth time, you can tell they are not having a good time. They like the attention. That's all.

But we ought to give them attention for doing things they like to do the way they like doing them. i recall one of my favorite gifts as a child was this kit where you could print newspapers, the front page. i used that kit up making the most banal headlines. i was delighted with each one. The parents made every effort to be too.

i also remember coming home from camp one year totally covered with bites and scrapes, some of which turned into scars. Instead of my mom worrying about my body being scarred up, she would point to a scar later and say, "You sure had a great time at summer camp that year. I have never SEEN a kid come home more beaten up!"

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

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.

Right.

But we were talking about pedophiles

The issue of dressing (predominantly/especially girl) children in risque clothing in an attempt to give them breasts and booties is a whole 'nother issue to be delved into if we're off the topic of pedophiles.


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Right.

But we were talking about pedophiles

The issue of dressing (predominantly/especially girl) children in risque clothing in an attempt to give them breasts and booties is a whole 'nother issue to be delved into if we're off the topic of pedophiles.


Dylan

I thought we were talking about Sexual Images of Children in the Media and if that promotes Pedophilia? Not Pedophilia as a stand alone.

The issue of kids in risque clothing is not off the topic of Sexual Images of Children in the Media.

It's all relevant.

Unless it's not.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

I thought we were talking about Sexual Images of Children in the Media and if that promotes Pedophilia? Not Pedophilia as a stand alone.

The issue of kids in risque clothing is not off the topic of Sexual Images of Children in the Media.

It's all relevant.

Unless it's not.

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

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Dylan

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.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

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.

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

[Medusa]

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.

[Hudson]

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.

[Bob]

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Bob

omg HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[SuperFemme]

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

Or better yet, Wonderschlong.

[Nat]

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.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Nat

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.

Yup.... it would be a really good thing for people to do some research into what pedophilia is and is not. Also, literature about what sexualized media images of children (and adult women posed as children in a sexualized manner) do and do not contribute to pedophilia. This isn't an area without a wealth of research data. This just isn't one of those shoot from the hip subjects.

And I agree with- your statement that 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.

[Lady Pamela]

Originally Posted by Hudson

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.

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.