Topic: I have a major problem with the sexualization of children.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic started this discussion 15 years ago #5,959
I think that it's strange how society claims to hate pedophilia and hurting children but allows things like this.totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later[^] [v] #103,530
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,531
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,532
Its like dress up, same with child beauty contests etc. Its fun for the kids, they love it, and its certainly not intended to turn on some pervert. Sometimes it goes a little far imo, but who the fuck am I to judge?
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,534
I agree, but normally here when a company does something inappropriate like putting a sexual innuendo on a t-shirt made for 8 year olds, the press normally kicks up a stink.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,535
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,536
This t-shirt was available from Delia’s, a mail-order catalog that targets girls between the ages of 12 and 15. They stopped selling it after some complaints.Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,537
@103,532 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
In a lot of ways, this. The only ones who interpret it sexually are pedophiles.
In a lot of ways, this. The only ones who interpret it sexually are pedophiles.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,541
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,542
Shirt available for ages 0-4 years old.Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,547
@103,535 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Yeah. If it were meant to turn people on and shit, that would be fucked up. If we're talking about those people who put children into obviously overly sexual pics etc just for pedos, thats different. Normally its just adults and kids having clean fun.
Yeah. If it were meant to turn people on and shit, that would be fucked up. If we're talking about those people who put children into obviously overly sexual pics etc just for pedos, thats different. Normally its just adults and kids having clean fun.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,550
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Where do you draw the line? What if something that a pedophile makes looks just the same as some of this good clean fun?
Where do you draw the line? What if something that a pedophile makes looks just the same as some of this good clean fun?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,551
Sexy toy makeovers.Lisa Frank.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,552
These things are by no means the norm. But still, I can see your point. While @103,542 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic) is obviously a joke and very few people are going to get a sick thrill out of it, @OP is obviously wrong. But again, stuff that extreme is fairly obscure.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,553
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,554
@103,541 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Be that as it may, you're going to see it that way because you want to see it that way. My previous statement was more of a generalisation. Most people look at it and they don't see it as marketing for sex with children. At least it's not when I see it in media.
Be that as it may, you're going to see it that way because you want to see it that way. My previous statement was more of a generalisation. Most people look at it and they don't see it as marketing for sex with children. At least it's not when I see it in media.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,555
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,557
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,558
@103,554 (D)
Why is it that things like this are okay, when people freak out over fully clothed "child models"?
Why is it that things like this are okay, when people freak out over fully clothed "child models"?
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,560
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,561
@103,550 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> Where do you draw the line?
Anything that is geared towards obvious sexuality and has no other purpose, not funny, cute etc.
> What if something that a pedophile makes looks just the same as some of this good clean fun?
Then its harmless yeah? Thing is, the children aren't the problem, the pedos are. Something is broke in them.
> Where do you draw the line?
Anything that is geared towards obvious sexuality and has no other purpose, not funny, cute etc.
> What if something that a pedophile makes looks just the same as some of this good clean fun?
Then its harmless yeah? Thing is, the children aren't the problem, the pedos are. Something is broke in them.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,562
My Little Pony.totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,564
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,565
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,566
@103,562 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,564 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,557 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,555 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,553 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,551 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
How is this sexualisation? If anything it's just an era makeover update for more recent culture. It's how businesses stay fresh and 'keep up with the times'.
@103,564 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,557 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,555 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,553 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,551 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
How is this sexualisation? If anything it's just an era makeover update for more recent culture. It's how businesses stay fresh and 'keep up with the times'.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,567
@103,565 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Seems over the top to me, but it looks like its not from our country, different cultures gonna different.
Seems over the top to me, but it looks like its not from our country, different cultures gonna different.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,568
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,569
> expect to4str
> get totoforhire
wat
> get totoforhire
wat
Anonymous F double-posted this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,570
> expect to4str
> get totoforhire
wat
> get totoforhire
wat
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,572
@103,567 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
But, if it had been put here by toaster, it would seem inappropriate to everyone.
But, if it had been put here by toaster, it would seem inappropriate to everyone.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,573
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,574
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,575
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,576
@103,568 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
It's the Bratz style of animation. And what suggestive poses? I don't see any kind of suggestive poses.
It's the Bratz style of animation. And what suggestive poses? I don't see any kind of suggestive poses.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,577
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,578
@103,572 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
@103,572 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> But, if it had been put here by toaster, it would seem inappropriate to everyone.
t04str likes boys. But to your point; intent. Intent has to be a factor. Some mothers dressing up their daughters a little 'sexy' for beauty contest is one thing, pedos dressing up a bus load of little girls for a 'show' is a whole other animal.
@103,572 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> But, if it had been put here by toaster, it would seem inappropriate to everyone.
t04str likes boys. But to your point; intent. Intent has to be a factor. Some mothers dressing up their daughters a little 'sexy' for beauty contest is one thing, pedos dressing up a bus load of little girls for a 'show' is a whole other animal.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,580
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
How would such a thing suddenly become inappropriate because of an individuals thoughts?
How would such a thing suddenly become inappropriate because of an individuals thoughts?
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,582
I think that the cartoons and toys aren't really major issues. I can't see any kind of pedo getting gratification out of troll girl cartoons when they can get things like @103,565 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic).
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,585
@103,577 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
I don't see anywhere in the pictures you post that that is prevalent. Please circle where this is the case in MS Paint and repost it? I'm really trying to see what you are talking about because it's not obvious to me whatsoever.
I don't see anywhere in the pictures you post that that is prevalent. Please circle where this is the case in MS Paint and repost it? I'm really trying to see what you are talking about because it's not obvious to me whatsoever.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,586
@103,582 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It's not about pedophilia, it's about how people think that it's okay to put children in adult roles and circumstances.
It's not about pedophilia, it's about how people think that it's okay to put children in adult roles and circumstances.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,589
@103,585 (D)
I'm not going to bother with all that, but I will talk about this more indepth. Like the Lisa Frank makeover for instance. The art goes from depicting kittens and puppies to young women with makeup, extra long exposed legs and midriffs.
I'm not going to bother with all that, but I will talk about this more indepth. Like the Lisa Frank makeover for instance. The art goes from depicting kittens and puppies to young women with makeup, extra long exposed legs and midriffs.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,590
@103,580 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> How would such a thing suddenly become inappropriate because of an individuals thoughts?
If a guy plays Santa for the kids it normal and cool, if a guy plays Santa for himself its creepy and wrong. Fairly simple concept.
> How would such a thing suddenly become inappropriate because of an individuals thoughts?
If a guy plays Santa for the kids it normal and cool, if a guy plays Santa for himself its creepy and wrong. Fairly simple concept.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,593
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
So, if MM and I were to both have the same images of children, that are legal but questionable, it would be okay for me but horrible for him?
So, if MM and I were to both have the same images of children, that are legal but questionable, it would be okay for me but horrible for him?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,597
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Yep, though since you have no children I would question your reasoning behind having "questionable" pictures.
Yep, though since you have no children I would question your reasoning behind having "questionable" pictures.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,599
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Well, it sounds like if I had them, they wouldn't be questionable at all.
Well, it sounds like if I had them, they wouldn't be questionable at all.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,600
@103,589 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
It's mostly a subversive way for advertising to impress upon young girls when they're still developing self-awareness that they should be pretty. What little girl doesn't want to grow up to be a pretty princess or something to that effect? That's mostly the message. They just like to dress up and pretend, it's part of what being a kid is about.
It's mostly a subversive way for advertising to impress upon young girls when they're still developing self-awareness that they should be pretty. What little girl doesn't want to grow up to be a pretty princess or something to that effect? That's mostly the message. They just like to dress up and pretend, it's part of what being a kid is about.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,601
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,602
Sexy Bieber pic.totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,603
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,605
Toddlers and Tiara's .Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,606
@103,601 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
But that's the thing. Most people don't find this sort of thing to be sexual at all. Deviancy is going to persist anywhere you go with anything you present. The bad eggs will always corrupt anything that is meant to be pure and fun. As rule 34 says, if it exists, there's going to be porn of it. I know that modesty has changed over the past few decades, but it's not something we should just outright ostracise.
But that's the thing. Most people don't find this sort of thing to be sexual at all. Deviancy is going to persist anywhere you go with anything you present. The bad eggs will always corrupt anything that is meant to be pure and fun. As rule 34 says, if it exists, there's going to be porn of it. I know that modesty has changed over the past few decades, but it's not something we should just outright ostracise.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,609
@previous (D)
Wait, what is meant to be pure and fun and what shouldn't we ostracize? Also, why is it almost always girls who are sexualized?
Wait, what is meant to be pure and fun and what shouldn't we ostracize? Also, why is it almost always girls who are sexualized?
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,613
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Social questions I don't think one person can answer definitively. Do you think that 'Little Miss' beauty pageants should not exist?
Social questions I don't think one person can answer definitively. Do you think that 'Little Miss' beauty pageants should not exist?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,616
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,621
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Is that because you believe it sexualises children? Also, it goes back to a general norm of 'females are expected to be pretty' and males is not so important. And here's what I mean by that, is that pretty is meant as cute, pleasing to the eye. Whatever sexual interpretations you receive out of that are your own. Not all cute things have to be taken in a sexual way. That's the intention of those beauty pageants, is to appreciate beauty in its forms, not to pick which of the litter you want to fuck the most.
Is that because you believe it sexualises children? Also, it goes back to a general norm of 'females are expected to be pretty' and males is not so important. And here's what I mean by that, is that pretty is meant as cute, pleasing to the eye. Whatever sexual interpretations you receive out of that are your own. Not all cute things have to be taken in a sexual way. That's the intention of those beauty pageants, is to appreciate beauty in its forms, not to pick which of the litter you want to fuck the most.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #103,628
@103,586 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Does it really matter if a cartoon or toy range has kids doing vaguely adult things? Nobody is harmed by that. I can't see how kids will be negatively influenced by it either.
Does it really matter if a cartoon or toy range has kids doing vaguely adult things? Nobody is harmed by that. I can't see how kids will be negatively influenced by it either.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,631
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,632
@103,628 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I think that great harm can come by putting more emphasis on females as sexual objects.
I think that great harm can come by putting more emphasis on females as sexual objects.
Katerina Shcherbatskaya joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,633
Objectification is the problem, not "sexualization".
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,634
A short video on how the media portrays young females.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjAVL5zFrlU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjAVL5zFrlU&feature=player_embedded
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,635
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,636
> Making children look older attracts paedophiles.
wtfamireading.jpg
wtfamireading.jpg
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,638
@103,631 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
In your opinion, which you have every right to have. I think they tend to make children into cult objects, but I don't think it's necessarily sexual. I think most people that attend those don't have devious thoughts (well, except maybe the moms who do it to live their dreams vicariously through their daughters), so as long as the kids are enjoying it, why not let them have their fun?
In your opinion, which you have every right to have. I think they tend to make children into cult objects, but I don't think it's necessarily sexual. I think most people that attend those don't have devious thoughts (well, except maybe the moms who do it to live their dreams vicariously through their daughters), so as long as the kids are enjoying it, why not let them have their fun?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,639
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,641
Katerina Shcherbatskaya replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,642
@103,635 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Humans are born sexual. Do you think kids should be discouraged from masturbating or playing doctor (i.e., being sexual)? You mentioned "adult roles", but nobody should have the role of a sexual object.
Humans are born sexual. Do you think kids should be discouraged from masturbating or playing doctor (i.e., being sexual)? You mentioned "adult roles", but nobody should have the role of a sexual object.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,643
@103,639 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Those are usually sensationalist pieces and I imagine the people they interview are not in the median.
Those are usually sensationalist pieces and I imagine the people they interview are not in the median.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,644
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,645
@103,642 (Katerina Shcherbatskaya)
No, I don't think that natural displays of sexuality are wrong. But I believe that enforcing those feelings and roles through advertising is.
No, I don't think that natural displays of sexuality are wrong. But I believe that enforcing those feelings and roles through advertising is.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,647
@103,644 (I)
No, I said that why is it wrong for pedophiles to sexualize children when the media already does so?
No, I said that why is it wrong for pedophiles to sexualize children when the media already does so?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,648
@103,632 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
How does the trolls cartoon and even my little ponly ephasise girls as sexual objects? They're just innocent cartoons. I think you're reading too much into them.
How does the trolls cartoon and even my little ponly ephasise girls as sexual objects? They're just innocent cartoons. I think you're reading too much into them.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,652
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Perhaps, but why would they be remade as skinny long legged teens?
Perhaps, but why would they be remade as skinny long legged teens?
sexual aerosol !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,654
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,656
@103,652 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
To make them look fashionable, and modern, I suppose. But again, it's innocent stuff, and doesn't cause any harm.
To make them look fashionable, and modern, I suppose. But again, it's innocent stuff, and doesn't cause any harm.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,659
@103,654 (sexual aerosol !!mtq555+/1)
Fuck off if you're not going to post any thing of value, hamfist.
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
This is what I've been saying. Most of those changes that were done was to modernise their franchises. Anything sexual about it is interpreted solely by the viewer, and most don't see anything sexual about any of it.
Fuck off if you're not going to post any thing of value, hamfist.
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
This is what I've been saying. Most of those changes that were done was to modernise their franchises. Anything sexual about it is interpreted solely by the viewer, and most don't see anything sexual about any of it.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Katerina Shcherbatskaya replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,663
Did you hear about this?
Man of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,672
Meh, all that matters to me is that the kids weren't extorted into it.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,674
@103,663 (Katerina Shcherbatskaya)
I was completely disgusted. She doesn't want that girl to ever have pubic hair! Sick.
I was completely disgusted. She doesn't want that girl to ever have pubic hair! Sick.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #103,675
Man of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,721
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Extorted into being sexualised. Extorted meaning being bribed as well.
Extorted into being sexualised. Extorted meaning being bribed as well.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,725
@previous (Man of !WisdomHsuU)
Some are. Most children don't make their own decisions on how to dress or spend their extra time.
Some are. Most children don't make their own decisions on how to dress or spend their extra time.
Man of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,733
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,740
@previous (Man of !WisdomHsuU)
It is and it happens all of the time. That story that Katerina mentioned for instance. That girl would never choose to wax her body hair and get botox on her own.
It is and it happens all of the time. That story that Katerina mentioned for instance. That girl would never choose to wax her body hair and get botox on her own.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Man of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,766
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
I find that far more disgusting than the sexualisation of children.
I find that far more disgusting than the sexualisation of children.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,769
Man of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,773
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
I don't find the sexualisation itself sickening; just the extortion. I couldn't care less if a child was running around naked or doing silly poses in front of a camera, but the moment they are forced to pose erotically on-camera, that is just too far.
I don't find the sexualisation itself sickening; just the extortion. I couldn't care less if a child was running around naked or doing silly poses in front of a camera, but the moment they are forced to pose erotically on-camera, that is just too far.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,779
Man of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,784
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
I care, and so should you. Extorting a child to be sexualised does far more emotional harm than child pornography.
I care, and so should you. Extorting a child to be sexualised does far more emotional harm than child pornography.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,787
Man of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,790
@previous (D)
Child pornography without extortion is just a minor doing silly poses while nude (or not) in front of a camera. Extortion is generally the cause of the mental trauma associated with child pornography.
Child pornography without extortion is just a minor doing silly poses while nude (or not) in front of a camera. Extortion is generally the cause of the mental trauma associated with child pornography.
Nimj joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,792
The examples you've used are extreme. Some aren't, and are just catering to the fact that children love to think and pretend that they're older than they are. It's the same as playing with a vacuum or a toy oven. It's not sexualization, I don't think.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,808
@previous (Nimj)
That might be true, but why is so much of this type of thing directed towards girls?
That might be true, but why is so much of this type of thing directed towards girls?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,809
Leland !BBbudGf3kM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,846
@103,792 (Nimj)
> The examples you've used are extreme. Some aren't, and are just catering to the fact that children love to think and pretend that they're older than they are. It's the same as playing with a vacuum or a toy oven. It's not sexualization, I don't think.
Goddamn. Ninjj for the win! My chest swells with pride for you, young man.
> The examples you've used are extreme. Some aren't, and are just catering to the fact that children love to think and pretend that they're older than they are. It's the same as playing with a vacuum or a toy oven. It's not sexualization, I don't think.
Goddamn. Ninjj for the win! My chest swells with pride for you, young man.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,927
It is like this......Long ago as history goes, people allowed children to be exploited in the USA. Many places on Planet Earth still do.
In the news is a mother who takes her daughter for Botox injections, so the kid (age 8?) very very young --so the kiddlet will look better as a child model.
So the how also starts with a mother and a father before society as a whole becomes included in the "picture"
In the news is a mother who takes her daughter for Botox injections, so the kid (age 8?) very very young --so the kiddlet will look better as a child model.
So the how also starts with a mother and a father before society as a whole becomes included in the "picture"
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,932
@previous (Syntax)
Can those those things ever be truly separate? Those same parents were raised in that society.
Can those those things ever be truly separate? Those same parents were raised in that society.
Nimj replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,947
@103,808 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Because boys don't like being sexy. They get the stuff that big girls like, and boys get little baseball bats and toy trucks. It's, unfortunately, the female equivalent.
@103,846 (Leland !BBbudGf3kM)
:')
Because boys don't like being sexy. They get the stuff that big girls like, and boys get little baseball bats and toy trucks. It's, unfortunately, the female equivalent.
@103,846 (Leland !BBbudGf3kM)
:')
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,948
Nimj replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,952
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Why? Because they see ladies in magazines and on TV. I'm the last person to say that it creates something stupid like "unrealistic expectations of beauty" but it does create something for young girls to want to be. Girls like beauty. It's feminine and mature. On the other hand, boys are taught that those things are emasculating. Yeah, society has created the expectations, but it's just how it is. It's more taking advantage of the girl-child's psyche than exploitation or sexualization. It just works.
Why? Because they see ladies in magazines and on TV. I'm the last person to say that it creates something stupid like "unrealistic expectations of beauty" but it does create something for young girls to want to be. Girls like beauty. It's feminine and mature. On the other hand, boys are taught that those things are emasculating. Yeah, society has created the expectations, but it's just how it is. It's more taking advantage of the girl-child's psyche than exploitation or sexualization. It just works.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,954
@103,932 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Of course not. Yesterday I pointed out that their are societies that accept Rape as ok, under certain conditions (Saudi women un-escorted, on the street if Raped ...no one will end up arrested because they believe the woman was asking for it.
Just a few years ago the prison sentence for CP and for Child Molestation, was only a few years. In some places it still is.
Parents usually follow their parents as role models, or .....want the child to be a star and will do anything everything to make it happen.
Of course not. Yesterday I pointed out that their are societies that accept Rape as ok, under certain conditions (Saudi women un-escorted, on the street if Raped ...no one will end up arrested because they believe the woman was asking for it.
Just a few years ago the prison sentence for CP and for Child Molestation, was only a few years. In some places it still is.
Parents usually follow their parents as role models, or .....want the child to be a star and will do anything everything to make it happen.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,968
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,976
> 1959
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #103,980
mountainman joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #105,166
I think the whole issue is overblown. I personally believe the reproductive act is best served within a relational structure suited to raising children (i.e. marriage). Many people do not believe this. Sex is not an evil thing, by any means. Some people think children are innocent, and must be protected from the evils of sex. I merely believe that young children are not ready to raise their own children and thus the reproductive act is not benefecial.