Has marketing a lot to answer for with regard to Peadophilia?

Blub2k4

I refer specifically to the sexualisation of the youth with such "stars" ( I use the term lightly) as Britney Spears and Billy Piper being sexualised and marketed as young as 14 in the case of Billy Piper and 15 or so for Britney.

We all know marketing works.

Is it a natural progression when you see the underage Britney, showing it all off and shaking her thing, to want to see her naked? Is it healthy at all that she be marketed sexually when the logical conclusion of this is illegal?

It's something that's bothered me for a while.

I am liberal and open minded but cant help drawing a link between an upsurge in child porn cases, where people use their "choice" to download images over their credit cards, and a media campaign sexualising youth. Or is it more a symptom of a sick society that can already rationalise the choice to kill someone (abortion) and sanitise it by calling it the right to choose?

Discuss.

Rev Hellfire

Can I humbly suggest you remove the abortion remark from the post for no other reason than its an interesting topic which will just get dragged onto "its my body to do with what I wish, Ohh no its life" roundabout of no return.

I'd certainly agree there is a sexualisation of very girls, which as a parent I must admit I find somewhat a worry. But then again children will always attempt to emulate adults.
I'm not sure we can lay this purely at the door of the media and wash our hands of it.
It is surely the job of parents to determine what is or is not suitable for children to wear. And for those who say they buy the close themselves, well how much money should a 12 year have ?

Karl Hungus

Are you saying that the likes of Britney are directly responsible for peadophilia? Are you suggesting that if people didn't see that sort of thing, there wouldn't be peadophiles? I don't buy it.

First of all, someone as deranged as a peadophile would probably have their urges reguardless of what's portrayed on MTV. Second of all, I don't see it as sexualising youth. It is around that age that people develop sexually anyway. If anything nature is sexualising them.

Of course if it was a case of sexualising a 9 year old for example, then that would be an entirely different case altogether.

Blub2k4

Karl Hungus wrote:

Are you saying that the likes of Britney are directly responsible for peadophilia? Are you suggesting that if people didn't see that sort of thing, there wouldn't be peadophiles? I don't buy it.

First of all, someone as deranged as a peadophile would probably have their urges reguardless of what's portrayed on MTV. Second of all, I don't see it as sexualising youth. It is around that age that people develop sexually anyway. If anything nature is sexualising them.

Of course if it was a case of sexualising a 9 year old for example, then that would be an entirely different case altogether.

No I'm not laying the blame at the feet of Britney, read the title of the post it hints at the thrust of my question.
Paedophilia has always been there I dont claim anything as simplistic as you suggest that would be stupid.

I suppose I should be more clear, what I mean is the people who are getting caught using their credit cards to pay for such services, people who support the market for the stuff but are not really a direct threat to children per se.
Operation Ore particularly, a high profile case that was intended to trawl for easy targets, let's not even get into the area of discussing whether or not it is moral for a law enforcement agency to entrap people with the very material they are trying to stop being disseminated. Pete Townsend, Brian Curtin and a few other high profile people were caught in this operation, of course Townsend was only doing research.....right.

Why is a 9 year old any different? Surely that suggests to you that there are degrees of seriousness, or is it all just as serious?

<edit> if nature is sexualising them already then surely it cant be unnatural, the statement is an oxymoron, but commonly bandied about.

Blub2k4

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Can I humbly suggest you remove the abortion remark from the post for no other reason than its an interesting topic which will just get dragged onto "its my body to do with what I wish, Ohh no its life" roundabout of no return.

Suggest away but that is an off-topic discussion and the rules of the forum already deal with that eventuality, thanks anyway, I think it is a valid point in the structuring of the question and the poser, playing it from a devils advocate point of view even, I didn't claim it was my opinion.

Beruthiel

Blub2k4 wrote:

Or is it more a symptom of a sick society that can already rationalise the choice to kill someone (abortion) and sanitise it by calling it the right to choose?.

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion imo.

Britney Spears and Billy Piper are not 5, 6, 7 year old kids, they had a choice in what they do, their parents allowed it and though I find it not particularly helpful, it has nothing to do with the sordid sick, underworld stuff that you can find out there on the net. Kids used and abused with nobody there to help them.

Blub2k4

Beruthiel wrote:

Britney Spears and Billy Piper are not 5, 6, 7 year old kids, they had a choice in what they do, their parents allowed it and though I find it not particularly helpful, it has nothing to do with the sordid sick, underworld stuff that you can find out there on the net. Kids used and abused with nobody there to help them.

In the eyes of the law there is no distinction between a five year old and a 13 year old, so you agree there are degrees of seriousness?

<edit> I think the comment is relevant by the way, it's all about choice these days, as consumers we have a right to choose, like I said it's added in a devils advocate type way.

Sleepy

I think the blame here is two-fold. On the one hand are the marketers that put this image out there and on the other are the parents that allow their children to look up to the creations of these marketing people and buy their latest CD's and 'fashions' that emulate what the pop stars are wearing. What parent in their right mind allows their 5/6 year old daughter wear revealing clothing? In the Disney store of all places they sell bikinis, swimsuits with cutaway midriffs etc. for children as young as 2 or 3!

I think you're right that this sexualisation of children fuels the market for child-porn etc.

With relation to teenagers being sexualised, I think this is largely understandable. Only a few generations ago, marriage and procreation in the mid-teens were common-place. Putting these sexualised teens out there as role-models for young children is incredibly irresponsible though.

Blub2k4

Sleepy wrote:

In the Disney store of all places they sell bikinis, swimsuits with cutaway midriffs etc. for children as young as 2 or 3!

This is another example, I tend to use the Britney example as the poster girl of this movement, probably a little facile but everyone gets the point.

Surely there are smarter people than us that have already joined the dots too no?

Disney is a bastion of American family values, what's the story?

<edit> I've also seen some of the stuff adults have their children wearing to their communions etc.

I was at a relatives house a while back and an 11 year old was wearing clothing that made me feel uncomfortable in the same room as her just because I didn't know where to look.

CoolGuy2006

Sleepy wrote:

? In the Disney store of all places they sell bikinis, swimsuits with cutaway midriffs etc. for children as young as 2 or 3!

I think you're right that this sexualisation of children fuels the market for child-porn etc.

How on earth is a kid wearing a swimsuit sexualising them?

Most kids run around naked anyway at the beach or whatever. Who at the beach wants to wear clothes, especially while they paddle their little feet in the water, Cmon, bad example.

A kid wearing a swimsuit is not sexualising them. Its perverts who look at kids that way that do

Blub2k4

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

How on earth is a kid wearing a swimsuit sexualising them?

A swimsuit with a suggestive cut-away mid-riff isn't sexual?

You dont feel a stirring when Pamela Anderson bounces across the screen wearing said same suit?

If it's being emulated on that level what else is acceptable?

I think it's a perfect example by the way.

<edit> regarding your perv comment: kinda like the chicken and the egg, which came first?

Blub2k4

Beruthiel wrote:

it has nothing to do with the sordid sick, underworld stuff that you can find out there on the net.

That's not the type of person that was caught by Operation Ore though, they are still operating more or less with impunity, I dont know if it's all still as open as it was then they took down whatever that Undernet group was they caught a while back the 100k images group.

I agree it has nothing to do with what you mention above, it however does have a lot to do with glossy webpages with credit card portals.

Sleepy

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

How on earth is a kid wearing a swimsuit sexualising them?

Most kids run around naked anyway at the beach or whatever. Who at the beach wants to wear clothes, especially while they paddle their little feet in the water, Cmon, bad example.

A kid wearing a swimsuit is not sexualising them. Its perverts who look at kids that way that do

It's more to do with the style of swimsuit, cutaway midriffs and skimpy bikinis are the uniform of the pin-up. When you get little children wearing these fashions it just looks horribly 'off' for want of a better word.

Zombrex

Blub2k4 wrote:

A swimsuit with a suggestive cut-away mid-riff isn't sexual?

It might suggest to an adult something sexual, but the kid isn't aware of its sexual nature. They are bearly aware of their own sexual nature. They are just following fashion, copying what adults wear.

It would be incorrect to assume things about a child because she is wearing an out fit that would project a certain sexualised imagine if it was worn by an adult. That is before you get into the whole question of if you should be assuming it about the adult in the first place.

It is also rather incorrect to think of peadophilia as simply adult sexual attraction transfered to children. This issue came up in an earlier thread when discussion the fact that a large portion of peadophilia concerned men with boys. A poster assumed these men were gay because they were going after children of the same sex. Because of this he was linking homosexuality to peadophilia. It was pointed out to him, by me and others, that it doesn't actually work like that. A peadophilia does not have the same sexual identity as a normal adult (straight or gay). They are not attracted to the child because they are male or female, they are attracted to the child because they young. Dressing them up as adults would probably have little, if not a negative, effect on the peadophilia's desires toward the child.

As to the question of is this sexually provokative dressing up of teenages can lead adults to peadophilie type behaviour, I doubt it. There is a big difference between an adult man fantasying about someone like Lindsy Lohan, and actually trying to sleep with a sixteen year old.

All male adults were coming into sexual awareness in their late teens. They reached their sexual peak at 18. It seems natural that they would have fantasies about sex from that time in their lives (16-18), probably when they weren't getting any sex at all. We can all remember the hot girl in your form class, or the girls on the female hockey team, or the first time you saw something like Playboy. Britney Spears dressing up in a cheer leader outfit is sexy because it reminds me of their first (and probably most exciting) sexual awareness.

But as I said, that is a world away from a 30 year old man actually trying to sleep with a 16 year old.

CoolGuy2006

Blub2k4 wrote:

A swimsuit with a suggestive cut-away mid-riff isn't sexual?

You dont feel a stirring when Pamela Anderson bounces across the screen wearing said same suit?

well im sure most people know the difference between a fully grown woman and a child.

Like when i see a naked beautiful woman, i might be sexually attracted to her, BUT i wouldnt be sexually attracted to a naked child.

simu

Wicknight wrote:

It might suggest to an adult something sexual, but the kid isn't aware of its sexual nature. They are bearly aware of their own sexual nature. They are just following fashion, copying what adults wear.

It would be incorrect to assume things about a child because she is wearing an out fit that would project a certain sexualised imagine if it was worn by an adult. That is before you get into the whole question of if you should be assuming it about the adult in the first place.

I agree.

You might as well be arguing that seeing men dressing up as women turns heterosexual men into homosexuals, OP.

Sleepy

I don't think this is something that turns people into paedophiles but I think it could be a contributing factor to those looking at those child porn photos on the net. If a child is wearing revealing clothes at a young age, they'll continue to wear them throughout their early to mid teens and presumably beyond. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an emotionally mature woman wearing revealing clothing (I'm a big fan at times ), as she knows her own sexuality and is okay with wearing something suggestive that she understands may put certain ideas into othe people's heads (and this may be the aim of wearing them).

A younger girl who doesn't yet fully understand her own sexuality and lacking the emotional maturity to deal with other's responses to it is a dangerous thing imho. I'm far from prudish but the attire and behaviour of the young girls you see knocking around Donnybrook on a Bective disco night is worrying to me. These girls are not emotionally mature enough to be wearing the clothes they're wearing or to deal with the response of the hormonal young boys at these discos.

I believe the media (which let's face it is mainly driven by marketing people) and those marketing these clothes and lifestyles to young girls are being completely irresponsible. Who knows what damage they're doing to these girls beyond the obvious cases of teen pregnancies etc.

Blub2k4

Sleepy wrote:

I don't think this is something that turns people into paedophiles but I think it could be a contributing factor to those looking at those child porn photos on the net. If a child is wearing revealing clothes at a young age, they'll continue to wear them throughout their early to mid teens and presumably beyond. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an emotionally mature woman wearing revealing clothing (I'm a big fan at times ), as she knows her own sexuality and is okay with wearing something suggestive that she understands may put certain ideas into othe people's heads (and this may be the aim of wearing them).

A younger girl who doesn't yet fully understand her own sexuality and lacking the emotional maturity to deal with other's responses to it is a dangerous thing imho. I'm far from prudish but the attire and behaviour of the young girls you see knocking around Donnybrook on a Bective disco night is worrying to me. These girls are not emotionally mature enough to be wearing the clothes they're wearing or to deal with the response of the hormonal young boys at these discos.

I believe the media (which let's face it is mainly driven by marketing people) and those marketing these clothes and lifestyles to young girls are being completely irresponsible. Who knows what damage they're doing to these girls beyond the obvious cases of teen pregnancies etc.

I'm glad someone can see where I am coming from.

The argument was never that these things create paedophiles, I didn't say that, please read the title as it is the main point of the discussion.
If I phrased it differently then I would understand the personal definitions that have been put forward, but I didn't and that would be a different discussion.

simu

Sleepy wrote:

A younger girl who doesn't yet fully understand her own sexuality and lacking the emotional maturity to deal with other's responses to it is a dangerous thing imho. I'm far from prudish but the attire and behaviour of the young girls you see knocking around Donnybrook on a Bective disco night is worrying to me. These girls are not emotionally mature enough to be wearing the clothes they're wearing or to deal with the response of the hormonal young boys at these discos.

Well, the problem there is that many parents don't instill self-confidence in their kids and don't teach them to say no to situations they're uncomfortable with. Because, in my experience, some hormonal boys/pervy old guys will pester girls no matter what they're wearing.

Zombrex

simu wrote:

Well, the problem there is that many parents don't instill self-confidence in their kids and don't teach them to say no to situations they're uncomfortable with. Because, in my experience, some hormonal boys/pervy old guys will pester girls no matter what they're wearing.

I agree, I don't think if a boy was pushing a young girl into a situation she ws not comfortable with, it has very much to do with their clothes. And I doubt because she is wearing less "sexy" clothes it wouldn't happen, or that she would be able to deal with the situation any better.

I don't know, this whole argument seems to be bordering very close to the old chestnut that women should wrap up well so men are not provoke into rape them.

If it were true you would imagine that someone was being sexually assulted in everyone school disco each Friday night.

I mean what are people saying here. That girls should not wear clothes that are considered, by adults to be sexy because that will invite immature boys to, what?, rape them? Sexually assault them? Assume they are "up for it".

To be honest I think the whole issue stems from our (as adults) confusion with how we view teenagers who dress in what we term to be sexy clothes. It is two conflicting concepts, one of adult sexuality clashing with the idea that sex before a certain age is wrong. This makes us uncomfortable, and rightly so.

But the kids are blissfully ignorant of our issues with regard to how they dress. They don't dress like this to project a air of sexuality, they dress like this because they think they look good, even if they are not aware of the adult rational of why fashion considers it a good look.

All this talk of peadophiles or boys being unable to control themselves is really just us, as adults, searching around for a logical reason to justify us feeling uncomfortable about this situation.

We think it is wrong, but we are not quite sure why.

I think it would be more healthy for us to realise that it is we, as adults, that have the issues with this, not the kids themselves.

CoolGuy2006

Wicknight wrote:

I don't know, this whole argument seems to be bordering very close to the old chestnut that women should wrap up well so men are not provoke into rape them.

I was just gonna say that mate.

The Corinthian

Beruthiel wrote:

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion imo.

Examining that we can rationalise any act that may be previously considered immoral because there is demand for it is a perfectly legitimate observation. And regardless of whether abortion is moral, immoral or amoral, it would be difficult to deny that there has been a lot of such rationalisation used to promote it as the former.

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

well im sure most people know the difference between a fully grown woman and a child.

Like when i see a naked beautiful woman, i might be sexually attracted to her, BUT i wouldnt be sexually attracted to a naked child.

It’s not so clear-cut. To begin with many cases of paedophilia are incorrectly labelled as such. Paedophilia refers to attraction to prepubescent minors, however the law defines child pornography as including minors who would be post-pubescent, especially given Western diets.

Of course, whether a post-pubescent 14-year old girl is mentally fit to have a sexual relationship is irrelevant - the point is that she’s post-pubescent and men will be sexually attracted, simply because we’re programmed to be. Indeed, historically ages of consent are a lot higher today than even a century ago where they were typically closer to 10 to 13 years of age, more keeping in line with the concept that sexual adulthood coincided with puberty.

So if examine the question of paedophilia, it is important to first separate prepubescent from post-pubescent minors, because then we may find that there has not actually been that much of an increase in the former as there has been a shift in moral opinion on the latter.

CoolGuy2006

well you quoted me from a post i made about swimsuits for 2-3 year olds in the disney store.

Blub2k4

Wicknight wrote:

I don't know, this whole argument seems to be bordering very close to the old chestnut that women should wrap up well so men are not provoke into rape them.

How can I clarify again without being repetitive?

Wicknight wrote:

I mean what are people saying here. That girls should not wear clothes that are considered, by adults to be sexy because that will invite immature boys to, what?, rape them? Sexually assault them? Assume they are "up for it".

A little too simple there Wicknight, if it were that simple I could have stated it to be such.

Wicknight wrote:

I think it would be more healthy for us to realise that it is we, as adults, that have the issues with this, not the kids themselves.

So how many children do you know who are advertising executives?

Vegeta

yeah just look at the age of consent in other european countries on the net and all of a sudden our neighbors seem like weirdos

cough* Spain *cough

Zombrex

Blub2k4 wrote:

How can I clarify again without being repetitive?

That was not a reply to you, it was reply to Sleepy's comments about Donnybrook discos (though you did seem to agree with his post).

Blub2k4 wrote:

So how many children do you know who are advertising executives?

None. How many adults do you know who have turned to child pornography after watching Lindsy Lohans latest video?

CoolGuy2006

Wicknight wrote:

None. How many adults do you know who have turned to child pornography after watching Lindsy Lohans latest video?

seriously, stop it, your robbing all my points :-)

Vegeta

Wicknight wrote:

None. How many adults do you know who have turned to child pornography after watching Lindsy Lohans latest video?

I'd say quite a few, I can imagine people looking for her picture online (when she was a minor). Wasn't Britney Spears the most searched for word on the net the year she came out

CoolGuy2006

Vegeta wrote:

I'd say quite a few, I can imagine people looking for her picture online (when she was a minor). Wasn't Britney Spears the most searched for word on the net the year she came out

and all of them were pervs i suppose. Ever see her gigs, sold out gigs with little teeny boppers. Im sure these know how to use a search engine too

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

I'd say quite a few, I can imagine people looking for her picture online (when she was a minor). Wasn't Britney Spears the most searched for word on the net the year she came out

Er, last time I check Lindsy Lohan didn't make child pornography ... unless you call simply being pretty and wearing short shorts "pornography"

Vegeta

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

and all of them were pervs i suppose. Ever see her gigs, sold out gigs with little teeny boppers. Im sure these know how to use a search engine too

I can guarantee you (and you know this full well) that adult males looked for pics of Brtiney (as scantly clad as possible) when she was a minor. I was contesting the point made that no adults were turned to sinister acts (i.e. looking up pics of half naked minors) because of people like Lohan n Britney but I disagree.

Does a child even need to be naked for it to be illegal, what if a guy gets off to a load of teenage girls in their swimsuits