Early sexualization of children? I hope these people spend a lifetime in Jail.
- Thread starter Shimmer
- Start date
M
Well-known member
Quote:
I disagree with the statement about Victoria secret. I def. don't think that thier commercials/catalogs are targeted towards women at all. If they were, they would be showing women of all shapes and sizes-not so called "perfect" media bodies-those are for men. Sex sells and that IMO is why they are popular. Not because of the quality of thier goods or because women will feel beautiful.
I also think that Maxim is very borderline when it comes to pushing the sexually explicit envelope-as are other mens mags. Things have become so acceptable these days that a lot of people don't really question what is "right" they just go with the flow. It's almost like people have started to think, "well everyone else does it/buys it/owns it etc. If you agree with the actual meaning of porn, than yes, Maxim is considered porn because it is soley targeted at arousing men. Otherwise they wouldn't need to "show" a womans beauty while she is half naked.
I don't think it makes one bit of difference if the girls on this website are naked or not. It was obviously done for one reason-to promote sexual arousal. I get really frustrated with the whole gray area thing. Some things are just plain right or wrong-I don't see the need for a gray area here at all. I think often times the laws just make things too complicated.
Originally Posted by Shimmer
The intent behind VS is to make a woman say "Wow, that corset could make me feel beautiful..." The intent behind MM(men's mags) is to make a man say "Holy shit dude check out her fucking tits...hey look there's an article over here..." |
I disagree with the statement about Victoria secret. I def. don't think that thier commercials/catalogs are targeted towards women at all. If they were, they would be showing women of all shapes and sizes-not so called "perfect" media bodies-those are for men. Sex sells and that IMO is why they are popular. Not because of the quality of thier goods or because women will feel beautiful.
I also think that Maxim is very borderline when it comes to pushing the sexually explicit envelope-as are other mens mags. Things have become so acceptable these days that a lot of people don't really question what is "right" they just go with the flow. It's almost like people have started to think, "well everyone else does it/buys it/owns it etc. If you agree with the actual meaning of porn, than yes, Maxim is considered porn because it is soley targeted at arousing men. Otherwise they wouldn't need to "show" a womans beauty while she is half naked.
I don't think it makes one bit of difference if the girls on this website are naked or not. It was obviously done for one reason-to promote sexual arousal. I get really frustrated with the whole gray area thing. Some things are just plain right or wrong-I don't see the need for a gray area here at all. I think often times the laws just make things too complicated.
Eoraptor
Well-known member
My roommate and I were discussing this the other day due to a commercial for Bratz Kidz. I'm generally against conservative values, so my first reaction wasn't negative (of course, I've never had a daughter, so I'm sure that makes my reaction different!). But then I thought.... crop tops and heavy makeup are really for the purpose of attracting sexual partners. Sure they can be fun to wear too, but they were designed for sexiness. So Bratz Kidz is encouraging pedophilia in a way. Not that I think a pedophile could use a kid's sexy image as an excuse for his actions, but it doesn't help. Then again, I think adult women dressing sexily doesn't help when it comes to rape, but I would never say it's the woman's fault for dressing sexily (or that all rapes are caused by that), or that we should restrict how women can dress (even if it would result in less rapes).
I have to agree with Raerae regarding the slippery slope. Not that I know how to solve the problem, or even what parts of it should be solved. A relevent fact is that more girls are experiencing puberty earlier now than in they have at other times in history, perhaps due to pollution and/or obesity. This is going to give them more sexually appealing attributes at a younger age. To make it even more of an issue, children are growing up faster mentally now than they have in the past. Technology is giving children access to more information sooner, and I'm all for an increased rate of education and mature thinking. But with that often comes the increased exposure to adult concepts like sexuality. So in response to M, expecting a child to be as childlike as they were in the 1950s is "old thinking", regardless of what your morals say regarding its goodness. And as the internet and digital TV become more user friendly (not to mention obesity and pollutants increasing), I expect kids to mature at an even younger age in the future. So it's definitely something to deal with, but I don't think it's something we could or should react to by enforcing historical standards that aren't realistic given the physiological and cultural differences kids are experiencing nowdays.
On a personal note, I've had two friends who had sex when they were 13. And that happened a decade ago, so I expect preteens in 2006 could be having it even earlier. I'm a liberal, so I'm generally for social freedoms, but I have to admit these friends' views on sex (now that they're adults) aren't ones I approve of. And how much of that is due to the young age at which they lost their virginity? On the other hand, would things have been different if they were exposed to sexual education while they were tweens? Perhaps a part of the solution is moving the sexual education back so that children are prepared for it at a younger age? Then again, there may be some level of mental maturity people need before they can really understand sex, and maybe that's not reached until after 13 years? Or maybe it is, I don't know. It's probably happening at an increasingly younger age in any case. But studies on that topic would certainly help society know the better course of action to take.
A complicated issue.
I have to agree with Raerae regarding the slippery slope. Not that I know how to solve the problem, or even what parts of it should be solved. A relevent fact is that more girls are experiencing puberty earlier now than in they have at other times in history, perhaps due to pollution and/or obesity. This is going to give them more sexually appealing attributes at a younger age. To make it even more of an issue, children are growing up faster mentally now than they have in the past. Technology is giving children access to more information sooner, and I'm all for an increased rate of education and mature thinking. But with that often comes the increased exposure to adult concepts like sexuality. So in response to M, expecting a child to be as childlike as they were in the 1950s is "old thinking", regardless of what your morals say regarding its goodness. And as the internet and digital TV become more user friendly (not to mention obesity and pollutants increasing), I expect kids to mature at an even younger age in the future. So it's definitely something to deal with, but I don't think it's something we could or should react to by enforcing historical standards that aren't realistic given the physiological and cultural differences kids are experiencing nowdays.
On a personal note, I've had two friends who had sex when they were 13. And that happened a decade ago, so I expect preteens in 2006 could be having it even earlier. I'm a liberal, so I'm generally for social freedoms, but I have to admit these friends' views on sex (now that they're adults) aren't ones I approve of. And how much of that is due to the young age at which they lost their virginity? On the other hand, would things have been different if they were exposed to sexual education while they were tweens? Perhaps a part of the solution is moving the sexual education back so that children are prepared for it at a younger age? Then again, there may be some level of mental maturity people need before they can really understand sex, and maybe that's not reached until after 13 years? Or maybe it is, I don't know. It's probably happening at an increasingly younger age in any case. But studies on that topic would certainly help society know the better course of action to take.
A complicated issue.
M
Well-known member
Quote:
What I want to know is where are camwhores parents? And why at 15 is she whoring herself this way? Geez! Does anyone know what thier kids are doing on the internet?
Is MySpace guilty-I personally think they should be help accountable to a degree.
I would have to say that if men save this on thier computer and they know she is 15 then yes-they are guilty of possessing child porn.
I doubt the girl would be found guilty.
| Originally Posted by Raerae
Example: MySpace CamWhore01, posts a photo of herself in a provocative pose. She's on her hands and knees, on her bed with her back arched and her butt in the air. Wearing nothing but a bra and thong. With the caption, "Wanna get with me?" Photoshopped under her photo (anyone who uses MySpace has seen photo's just like this). This is just one of her many photo's on her MySpace page in varios states of undress. However, she's never fully "nude" in any of her pics. CamWhore01 is 15 years old. Is MySpace.com now guilty of hosting Child Pornography? What about the millions of guys who right-click save these photo's on their hard drives. Are they now guilty of being in posession of Child Pornography? What about the girl who took photo's of herself? Is she now guilty of shooting child porn? |
What I want to know is where are camwhores parents? And why at 15 is she whoring herself this way? Geez! Does anyone know what thier kids are doing on the internet?
Is MySpace guilty-I personally think they should be help accountable to a degree.
I would have to say that if men save this on thier computer and they know she is 15 then yes-they are guilty of possessing child porn.
I doubt the girl would be found guilty.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
I agree with you regarding the gray area. I agree that there's no need for it to be as complicated as it is.
The VS thing, meh. It's a marketing campaign, much the same as it is with Cosmo and Glamour where they sell and show perfection to give something to ascribe to. *shrug*
| Originally Posted by M
Quote:
I disagree with the statement about Victoria secret. I def. don't think that thier commercials/catalogs are targeted towards women at all. If they were, they would be showing women of all shapes and sizes-not so called "perfect" media bodies-those are for men. Sex sells and that IMO is why they are popular. Not because of the quality of thier goods or because women will feel beautiful. I also think that Maxim is very borderline when it comes to pushing the sexually explicit envelope-as are other mens mags. Things have become so acceptable these days that a lot of people don't really question what is "right" they just go with the flow. It's almost like people have started to think, "well everyone else does it/buys it/owns it etc. If you agree with the actual meaning of porn, than yes, Maxim is considered porn because it is soley targeted at arousing men. Otherwise they wouldn't need to "show" a womans beauty while she is half naked. I don't think it makes one bit of difference if the girls on this website are naked or not. It was obviously done for one reason-to promote sexual arousal. I get really frustrated with the whole gray area thing. Some things are just plain right or wrong-I don't see the need for a gray area here at all. I think often times the laws just make things too complicated. |
I agree with you regarding the gray area. I agree that there's no need for it to be as complicated as it is.
The VS thing, meh. It's a marketing campaign, much the same as it is with Cosmo and Glamour where they sell and show perfection to give something to ascribe to. *shrug*
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
I think there should be some clarification here.
Physical maturation and emotional/psycholgical maturation are two wholly different things.
An eight year old with a B cup may be physically mature, particularly in comparison to her peers, but she is nowhere near mature mentally or psychologically or emotionally. She's not capable of processing what that physical maturation means.
Good golly. A gramma at 27. I think not.
| Originally Posted by eoraptor So in response to M, expecting a child to be as childlike as they were in the 1950s is "old thinking", regardless of what your morals say regarding its goodness. And as the internet and digital TV become more user friendly (not to mention obesity and pollutants increasing), I expect kids to mature at an even younger age in the future. So it's definitely something to deal with, but I don't think it's something we could or should react to by enforcing historical standards that aren't realistic given the physiological and cultural differences kids are experiencing nowdays. |
I think there should be some clarification here.
Physical maturation and emotional/psycholgical maturation are two wholly different things.
An eight year old with a B cup may be physically mature, particularly in comparison to her peers, but she is nowhere near mature mentally or psychologically or emotionally. She's not capable of processing what that physical maturation means.
Good golly. A gramma at 27. I think not.
M
Well-known member
Quote:
Yes, I agree-using historical standards to react isn't realistic. And that isn't what I was trying to say. What I was trying to point out is that I don't think that there is a gray area when it comes to child porn. It is or it isn't IMO and IMO it's wrong. I think a lot of ppl these days just accept things w/o questioning because it's considered normal. I don't think it's old thinking to be against child porn-I don't see it as normal or ok. I don't care what the year on the calendar says. I don't think there is any postive benefit to any kind of porn for that matter-regardless of my spiritual beleifs.
It never ceases to amaze me how many parents have no idea what their kids are doing on the computer, watching on TV or "who" they get thier thoughts/ideas from. The world looked a lot different to me before I had children. I imagine that happens to a lot of parents. The world looks pretty crazy and broken from this side of the fence.
| Originally Posted by Eoraptor
So in response to M, expecting a child to be as childlike as they were in the 1950s is "old thinking", regardless of what your morals say regarding its goodness. And as the internet and digital TV become more user friendly (not to mention obesity and pollutants increasing), I expect kids to mature at an even younger age in the future. So it's definitely something to deal with, but I don't think it's something we could or should react to by enforcing historical standards that aren't realistic given the physiological and cultural differences kids are experiencing nowdays. |
Yes, I agree-using historical standards to react isn't realistic. And that isn't what I was trying to say. What I was trying to point out is that I don't think that there is a gray area when it comes to child porn. It is or it isn't IMO and IMO it's wrong. I think a lot of ppl these days just accept things w/o questioning because it's considered normal. I don't think it's old thinking to be against child porn-I don't see it as normal or ok. I don't care what the year on the calendar says. I don't think there is any postive benefit to any kind of porn for that matter-regardless of my spiritual beleifs.
It never ceases to amaze me how many parents have no idea what their kids are doing on the computer, watching on TV or "who" they get thier thoughts/ideas from. The world looked a lot different to me before I had children. I imagine that happens to a lot of parents. The world looks pretty crazy and broken from this side of the fence.
M
Well-known member
Quote:
ITA-as a 13 year old girl I poured over these magazines-keep in mind that was 20 years ago! I thought I would be perfect and beautiful if I only looked like the models-my eyes, face, skin, body etc. I totally think womens mags use sex to sell thier side too. Afterall, most articles have to do with how "we" can be better in bed or keep our man satisfied. I rarely see anything about encouraging us for the woman we are-only ways that we should be different or better. These theories affected me so negatively as a teenager and young woman-I ended up feeling worthless. There was no one to tell me any different and at 13+ how would I know any better?
I guess it just makes me sad that young girls can be drawn in to believing that what the mags show is all there is to life.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
The VS thing, meh. It's a marketing campaign, much the same as it is with Cosmo and Glamour where they sell and show perfection to give something to ascribe to. *shrug* |
ITA-as a 13 year old girl I poured over these magazines-keep in mind that was 20 years ago! I thought I would be perfect and beautiful if I only looked like the models-my eyes, face, skin, body etc. I totally think womens mags use sex to sell thier side too. Afterall, most articles have to do with how "we" can be better in bed or keep our man satisfied. I rarely see anything about encouraging us for the woman we are-only ways that we should be different or better. These theories affected me so negatively as a teenager and young woman-I ended up feeling worthless. There was no one to tell me any different and at 13+ how would I know any better?
I guess it just makes me sad that young girls can be drawn in to believing that what the mags show is all there is to life.
Eoraptor
Well-known member
Quote:
As always, it's complicated. Puberty is both a physical and a mental change, as the hormones affect your mind as well as your body. So girls who experience earlier puberty probably feel sexual at a younger age. Also, how much of the mental immaturity could be fixed with earlier sex education? Finally, I think we'd agree that older teenagers generally don't handle sex well emotionally or psychologically either. Yet we generally think it's okay to let 16 year old girls have their short-lived boyfriends and such, if only to help them learn so that by the time they're adults, they're able to have better sexual/romantic relationships. But I could agree with your statement, at least in part, as I said-
Quote:
| I think there should be some clarification here. Physical maturation and emotional/psycholgical maturation are two wholly different things. An eight year old with a B cup may be physically mature, particularly in comparison to her peers, but she is nowhere near mature mentally or psychologically or emotionally. She's not capable of processing what that physical maturation means. |
As always, it's complicated. Puberty is both a physical and a mental change, as the hormones affect your mind as well as your body. So girls who experience earlier puberty probably feel sexual at a younger age. Also, how much of the mental immaturity could be fixed with earlier sex education? Finally, I think we'd agree that older teenagers generally don't handle sex well emotionally or psychologically either. Yet we generally think it's okay to let 16 year old girls have their short-lived boyfriends and such, if only to help them learn so that by the time they're adults, they're able to have better sexual/romantic relationships. But I could agree with your statement, at least in part, as I said-
Quote:
| ... there may be some level of mental maturity people need before they can really understand sex, and maybe that's not reached until after 13 years? Or maybe it is, I don't know. |
MarniMac
Well-known member
Wow...this is one discussion I thought everyone might agree on. In response to the original question...yes, I think the photographer should be convicted as a sex offender...the girl was underage and taking pics of a minor in their underwear seems like it would be against the law...even if the law states that its ok if the parent gives permission, obviously the mom didn't even know what was happening, so he is guilty. I still think the mom was an idiot for leaving her daughter alone with the photographer though...not to mention staying in the house after learning the guy had a gun.
Eoraptor
Well-known member
Quote:
There's almost always a gray area in anything, especially morals. Child porn is a particularily easy case to gray-ify. Think of all the intermediates between what outfit you would consider proper, and what outfit you would consider improper. There's going to be a gray area somewhere. Maybe the top ends a little high, but not quite high enough to be sexual. Or is it? It may depend on how the kid is posed, since fabric moves. Are those heels quite tall or thin enough to be sexual? Is that lipgloss too glossy or too colored? Maybe not quite enough. You get my point.
When it comes to morals, your statements really seem to imply a historically stable morality, but that's not reality. Morality is a human property that changes between societies and with time. Things that are considered normal nowdays are by definition moral in our society. Porn used to be something frowned upon, but today the general moral consensus in American society is that using adult porn is a normal healthy action for singles. You're a bit behind this particular wave of change, but there will always be some who lag behind and some who charge ahead. Of course it doesn't mean you're wrong, since morality is subjective.
That's something we should keep in mind when judging childrens' actions too. Their society is slightly ahead of ours, so their generations' morals aren't going to be the same. How do our parents feel about the way WE dress, especially when we were younger? Our grandparents? Great grandparents? Yet we think we dress just fine. It's all comparative.
| What I was trying to point out is that I don't think that there is a gray area when it comes to child porn. It is or it isn't IMO and IMO it's wrong. I think a lot of ppl these days just accept things w/o questioning because it's considered normal. |
There's almost always a gray area in anything, especially morals. Child porn is a particularily easy case to gray-ify. Think of all the intermediates between what outfit you would consider proper, and what outfit you would consider improper. There's going to be a gray area somewhere. Maybe the top ends a little high, but not quite high enough to be sexual. Or is it? It may depend on how the kid is posed, since fabric moves. Are those heels quite tall or thin enough to be sexual? Is that lipgloss too glossy or too colored? Maybe not quite enough. You get my point.
When it comes to morals, your statements really seem to imply a historically stable morality, but that's not reality. Morality is a human property that changes between societies and with time. Things that are considered normal nowdays are by definition moral in our society. Porn used to be something frowned upon, but today the general moral consensus in American society is that using adult porn is a normal healthy action for singles. You're a bit behind this particular wave of change, but there will always be some who lag behind and some who charge ahead. Of course it doesn't mean you're wrong, since morality is subjective.
That's something we should keep in mind when judging childrens' actions too. Their society is slightly ahead of ours, so their generations' morals aren't going to be the same. How do our parents feel about the way WE dress, especially when we were younger? Our grandparents? Great grandparents? Yet we think we dress just fine. It's all comparative.
MarniMac
Well-known member
Quote:
CHILDREN in underwear, lingerie and heels in sexual suggestive positions is not very gray at all to me. A picture is worth a thousand words...and honestly, we all know sexually suggestive when we see it. CHILDREN don't need to be naked to be exploited...its child pornography, no question about it. A thong is not just a "piece of clothing"...its underwear (I mean there is a reason my man slinks off with the VS catalogue every month and those girls aren't naked either!).
| “There are no semi-nude or nude images,” she said. “The children are dressed in underwear, adult lingerie, high heels, etc., and placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity.” |
CHILDREN in underwear, lingerie and heels in sexual suggestive positions is not very gray at all to me. A picture is worth a thousand words...and honestly, we all know sexually suggestive when we see it. CHILDREN don't need to be naked to be exploited...its child pornography, no question about it. A thong is not just a "piece of clothing"...its underwear (I mean there is a reason my man slinks off with the VS catalogue every month and those girls aren't naked either!).
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
Right... Is that really bad parenting though? I dont think there is any girl alive in her teens who didn't pose in the mirror in her bra and panties making sexy faces at the mirror like they saw in their Moms magazines.
There is just a shift now with technology, and camera's being so easily availible, thats it's not too far a stretch to see how this ends up on the web. With webcams built into every PC, and camera's in every cell phone that take photo's and video. Combine that with how niave some people are to how very public the internet really is and the overall ignorance (is genuine ignorance regarding rapid changing technology really bad parenting?) many parents have towards the internet, cellphones, etc.
Not to mention how easy it is to get swept up into "internet popularity" and all the percieved attention it brings (All ages are victims of this, not just kids). People are willing to post on the web secrets/photo's/video's whatever of things that would never share or do in public. I know I'm guilty, and I learned the hard way (exactly why i dont post pics anymore, as tempting as it is sometimes).
It's kinda scary that stuff like the above, has the potential to become illegal material. Even scarier, is I'm sure PLENTY of it, ends up on pedo sites like the people in the article were taking photo's for. RCS RCS RCS RCS RCS = $$$ And on many websites, anything you upload becomes their property, and you lose any rights at all to that photo. So who knows how many of those websites are selling photo's like phone lists to make a quick buck.
On a positive note, I think upcomming parents are going to be more capable of monitoring and dealing with their kids, and how the internet fits into it. Many parents now are just unaware, wheras, peeps in their early 20's now grew up on PC's. And know what the web is all about.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
I don't deny the water is murky. At that point, I'm fairly sure some sort of parental responsibility comes into play, though a new precedent would have to be set before anyone would draw the line and say how far that goes. |
Right... Is that really bad parenting though? I dont think there is any girl alive in her teens who didn't pose in the mirror in her bra and panties making sexy faces at the mirror like they saw in their Moms magazines.
There is just a shift now with technology, and camera's being so easily availible, thats it's not too far a stretch to see how this ends up on the web. With webcams built into every PC, and camera's in every cell phone that take photo's and video. Combine that with how niave some people are to how very public the internet really is and the overall ignorance (is genuine ignorance regarding rapid changing technology really bad parenting?) many parents have towards the internet, cellphones, etc.
Not to mention how easy it is to get swept up into "internet popularity" and all the percieved attention it brings (All ages are victims of this, not just kids). People are willing to post on the web secrets/photo's/video's whatever of things that would never share or do in public. I know I'm guilty, and I learned the hard way (exactly why i dont post pics anymore, as tempting as it is sometimes).
It's kinda scary that stuff like the above, has the potential to become illegal material. Even scarier, is I'm sure PLENTY of it, ends up on pedo sites like the people in the article were taking photo's for. RCS RCS RCS RCS RCS = $$$ And on many websites, anything you upload becomes their property, and you lose any rights at all to that photo. So who knows how many of those websites are selling photo's like phone lists to make a quick buck.
On a positive note, I think upcomming parents are going to be more capable of monitoring and dealing with their kids, and how the internet fits into it. Many parents now are just unaware, wheras, peeps in their early 20's now grew up on PC's. And know what the web is all about.
Eoraptor
Well-known member
Quote:
Just in case that was directed toward my post, note I never claimed the case in question was in my gray area, just that gray areas exist for everyone. In the present case, the reportedly explicitly sexual poses and expressions as well as the adult sexy clothing worn makes the websites pornographic, and thus immoral for a 12 year old in my view. Apparently a slight majority of the voters on the news website's poll agree.
There are yet more complications if we're discussing the industry though.
Childrens clothing exists, so there is a need for child models to help sell it. Yet I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of a parent putting a child into a career, since young kids aren't mature enough to know what they want to do with their lives. Nor do they understand many issues about modeling or fashion. So what to do? Not allow kids under 14 to model clothing? Maybe.
Also, pedophiles don't need sexually explicit images to get off. So the proposition the site was illegal because it was "aimed toward pedophiles" is a weak reason for making charges in my opinion. Imagine a website that collected images of fully tastefully clothed children (from store catalogs and such), but presented itself as a child porn site. Should that be illegal? Should websites be held responsible for how the public uses them, even if they encourage an immoral use? People do have free will to act, and I don't think it's good for society to structure itself on the theory everyone is a moronic robot. Nor do I think people could or should be punished for their thoughts or private actions, as immoral as they may be in my view.
So if you alter the story to involve childrens' clothing and poses that were legitimately sellable to kids, I couldn't argue for legal action, regardless of how immoral it may be in my opinion.
| CHILDREN in underwear, lingerie and heels in sexual suggestive positions is not very gray at all to me. |
Just in case that was directed toward my post, note I never claimed the case in question was in my gray area, just that gray areas exist for everyone. In the present case, the reportedly explicitly sexual poses and expressions as well as the adult sexy clothing worn makes the websites pornographic, and thus immoral for a 12 year old in my view. Apparently a slight majority of the voters on the news website's poll agree.
There are yet more complications if we're discussing the industry though.
Childrens clothing exists, so there is a need for child models to help sell it. Yet I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of a parent putting a child into a career, since young kids aren't mature enough to know what they want to do with their lives. Nor do they understand many issues about modeling or fashion. So what to do? Not allow kids under 14 to model clothing? Maybe.
Also, pedophiles don't need sexually explicit images to get off. So the proposition the site was illegal because it was "aimed toward pedophiles" is a weak reason for making charges in my opinion. Imagine a website that collected images of fully tastefully clothed children (from store catalogs and such), but presented itself as a child porn site. Should that be illegal? Should websites be held responsible for how the public uses them, even if they encourage an immoral use? People do have free will to act, and I don't think it's good for society to structure itself on the theory everyone is a moronic robot. Nor do I think people could or should be punished for their thoughts or private actions, as immoral as they may be in my view.
So if you alter the story to involve childrens' clothing and poses that were legitimately sellable to kids, I couldn't argue for legal action, regardless of how immoral it may be in my opinion.
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
I think with the net though it's not always the parents fault. I've been "on-line" since b4 the internet, before things like AoL were household names. And there was just as much dirt floating around back then as there is today. My parents would have probably flipped had they known what (and who) a PC with a Modem can give a kid access to, and compared to today, the playground back then was like a sterile doctors office. Fast-Fwd a few years, and the internet is even dirtier. But just as many parents are as ignorant today, as my parents were 15 years ago. PC's are harmless right? It's just a computer. The internet will be great for helping them get good grades in school!
Quote:
You have Moms and Dads who barely even know how to use a PC, living with kids who know how to use them inside and out. The parents think they are doing their kids a favor, getting them a PC for their bedroom and a cable modem because it will be good for their education. And instead they purchaced a rabit hole and a one way ticket to wonderland.
Quote:
The sudden attention? The internet can be a very powerful motivator that lets people be anything and anyone they want to be. Without having to worry about the consiquences (or so many people think).
Ever gone into a popular yahoo (or any other kind) chatroom with your webcam up and running? You'll be SPAMMED with IM's and requests to view your webcam. And then SPAMMED with requests to, "show your tits!" It's the same reason plenty of innocent girls end up topless on shows like, "girls gone wild." It's a chance to be naughty, where no one really knows your name (so you think).
The web also becomes a popularity contest. Wanna be the popular girl on MySpace who gets lots of hot guys and a million friends on your friends list? Then you gotta slut it up. Because if you aren't, they go to the girls who are. Same thing with webpages like, www.hotornot.com wanna score a high number? Take off your top, pose in your bra/panties. No one wants to get a low number, and all the conservative dressed girls score signifigantly lower than the slutty girls. No one who posts on those sites does it w/out looking at the competition beforehand. It's easy to see what scores high and what scores low.
Meanwhile Mom and Dad think their darling little girl/boy (guys do it just as much) is being a great kid. She gets good grades in school, doesn't stay out late on weekends (she's at home on MySpace instead). She's not smoking, or doing drugs. And she's getting so much use out of that PC they got her for her birthday, it was such a great gift.
Quote:
Some do, but the vast majority dont. Thats likeley to change though as the tech kids get older. I know what the internet is all about. Why? Cuz I did it all to some degree or another. So I also know what I will and will not allow my kids to have.
Were just going through an adjustment phase right now, where the tech jumped WAY ahead of the previous generation. So you have kids who are totally savvy, and parents who are totally ignorant.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
When a parent is being a bad parent, there's really no question, because it's blatantly obvious. |
I think with the net though it's not always the parents fault. I've been "on-line" since b4 the internet, before things like AoL were household names. And there was just as much dirt floating around back then as there is today. My parents would have probably flipped had they known what (and who) a PC with a Modem can give a kid access to, and compared to today, the playground back then was like a sterile doctors office. Fast-Fwd a few years, and the internet is even dirtier. But just as many parents are as ignorant today, as my parents were 15 years ago. PC's are harmless right? It's just a computer. The internet will be great for helping them get good grades in school!
Quote:
| What I want to know is where are camwhores parents? |
You have Moms and Dads who barely even know how to use a PC, living with kids who know how to use them inside and out. The parents think they are doing their kids a favor, getting them a PC for their bedroom and a cable modem because it will be good for their education. And instead they purchaced a rabit hole and a one way ticket to wonderland.
Quote:
| And why at 15 is she whoring herself this way? |
The sudden attention? The internet can be a very powerful motivator that lets people be anything and anyone they want to be. Without having to worry about the consiquences (or so many people think).
Ever gone into a popular yahoo (or any other kind) chatroom with your webcam up and running? You'll be SPAMMED with IM's and requests to view your webcam. And then SPAMMED with requests to, "show your tits!" It's the same reason plenty of innocent girls end up topless on shows like, "girls gone wild." It's a chance to be naughty, where no one really knows your name (so you think).
The web also becomes a popularity contest. Wanna be the popular girl on MySpace who gets lots of hot guys and a million friends on your friends list? Then you gotta slut it up. Because if you aren't, they go to the girls who are. Same thing with webpages like, www.hotornot.com wanna score a high number? Take off your top, pose in your bra/panties. No one wants to get a low number, and all the conservative dressed girls score signifigantly lower than the slutty girls. No one who posts on those sites does it w/out looking at the competition beforehand. It's easy to see what scores high and what scores low.
Meanwhile Mom and Dad think their darling little girl/boy (guys do it just as much) is being a great kid. She gets good grades in school, doesn't stay out late on weekends (she's at home on MySpace instead). She's not smoking, or doing drugs. And she's getting so much use out of that PC they got her for her birthday, it was such a great gift.
Quote:
| Geez! Does anyone know what thier kids are doing on the internet? |
Some do, but the vast majority dont. Thats likeley to change though as the tech kids get older. I know what the internet is all about. Why? Cuz I did it all to some degree or another. So I also know what I will and will not allow my kids to have.
Were just going through an adjustment phase right now, where the tech jumped WAY ahead of the previous generation. So you have kids who are totally savvy, and parents who are totally ignorant.
