Sexual Images of Children in the Media: Promoting Pedophilia?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

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

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Ped...e_Internet.pdf

http://americansfortruth.com/issues/pedophiliapederasty

http://www.etherzone.com/2010/mako011110.shtml

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

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

Interesting! And here I've been loving my Google Chrome! I wonder why the discrepancy in search results (i have no idea about these things.).

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

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

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Ped...e_Internet.pdf

http://americansfortruth.com/issues/pedophiliapederasty

http://www.etherzone.com/2010/mako011110.shtml

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

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

It's usually a good idea to actually read the articles one is posting, as the articles don't even correlate to the conversation

Except the one you posted about amercans for truth prattling on about how homos are pedophiles


Just Sayin',
Dylan

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Interesting! And here I've been loving my Google Chrome! I wonder why the discrepancy in search results (i have no idea about these things.).

Have you not seen the commercials? They are SO true. I googled and sure enough, the planet came first. Crazy.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Dylan

It's usually a good idea to actually read the articles one is posting, as the articles don't even correlate to the conversation

Except the one you posted about amercans for truth prattling on about how homos are pedophiles


Just Sayin',
Dylan

Even more interesting! I knew the Americans for Truth one would be trash, but I hadn't clicked on any of the sites yet.

I was just surprised that two different search engines could yield such different results.

So, if at least google came back with the this conversation, it is relevant to the topic at hand.

[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

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Medusa

If you Google pretty much any of our thread titles and use the exact same or almost exact same verbiage, of course they will show up in Google.

I thought of that too--of course, after I got the results and actually looked at my key words and then the title of this thread!

I was still a bit surprised that the four key words of pedophilia, media, images and children (in my search) would make this site the first result b/c I presumed there would be a lot of articles/discussion/research on this topic that would give other sites primacy in the results.

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Dylan

It's usually a good idea to actually read the articles one is posting, as the articles don't even correlate to the conversation

Except the one you posted about amercans for truth prattling on about how homos are pedophiles


Just Sayin',
Dylan

See my edit oh Relevance Avenger.

Snort,
Adele

[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.

[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.