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

Vegeta

Wicknight wrote:

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

well you said turned to child porn not turned to Lohan porn, big difference or does all child porn have to include Lindsy Lohan???

as i said if a guy is whacking off to a pic of a teenage girl who is wearing a short skirt (doesn't have to be naked) then that is child porn

Zombrex

Vegeta wrote:

well you said turned to child porn not turned to Lohan porn, big difference or does all child porn have to include Lindsy Lohan???

Thats my point. There is a big difference between a picture of Lohan in a music video and child pornography. Child pornography normal consists of a child either having sexual intercourse with an adult or another child, or being sexually assaulted by an adult.

Vegeta wrote:

as i said if a guy is whacking off to a pic of a teenage girl who is wearing a short skirt (doesn't have to be naked) then that is child porn

No, its not. Any more than a padophilie wacking off to a Mother-care catalog makes it child pornography.

Pornography is defined by the item itself, not the viewers reaction to it. If that was the case nearly everything woudl be considered porn, because I'm sure there is someone some where who will be turned on by nearly anything

Vegeta you seem to be not really understanding what child porn is and why it is illegal. It is not simply an adult getting arosed by a picture of a child. That isn't it at all. It is a child being made participate in the production of pornographic material. Children cannot concent to this so it is illegal even if they are willing. But often they are forced into it, which makes the crime even worse.

Blub2k4

Wicknight wrote:

Thats my point. There is a big difference between a picture of Lohan in a music video and child pornography. Child pornography normal consists of a child either having sexual intercourse with an adult or another child, or being sexually assaulted by an adult.

Of course there is a big difference, but I am beginning to wonder if you are being deliberately disingenious.

Do you understand what the question is asking in the title?

In the eyes of the law there is no difference between prepubescents and non when it comes to being caught with "Child porn".
The term is a broad one, I honestly believe people dont even know what they are getting het up about when it comes to this emotive subject.

Do you personally see a difference between pics of a pre-pubescent and an illegal teenager?

The Corinthian

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

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

I wasn’t trying to get at you, merely commenting on the literal meaning of your statement, out of context.

You asked whether we know the difference between a child and a fully-grown woman. Given that legally a 16-year old is still a child in Ireland, but might well look more mature and developed then many 20-year olds, the answer is no. It’s not that simple.

Wicknight wrote:

Child pornography normal consists of a child either having sexual intercourse with an adult or another child, or being sexually assaulted by an adult.

FYI: Child pornography is legally defined, AFAIK, to be materials that appear to depict minors engaged in lewd acts. This means:

• The subject need not be performing a sexual act with another individual, provocative poses would suffice.
• The age of majority rather than the age of consent is used as the standard.
• The subject appears to below the above age rather that is below the above age. As such many ‘barely legal’ pornography could well be deemed illegal if it attempts to portray the subjects to be younger than the above age. Also (although I’m less sure on this) fake child porn - produced either with Photoshop or other imaging software - may also be deemed illegal if it attempts to portray the subjects to be younger than the above age.

Nevyn

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

No.
It doesn't you are either a pedophile or you are not.

It does how ever push sexualised images to the extent that children wanting to be more grown up will try and portay themselves in a way they see as being grown up.
10 year old girls should not be in short shorts and boobtubes they should be in
age appropiate styles that cover them correctly and are not merely scaled down verisons of adult fashions.

CiaranC

The job of the marketing department in your favourite friendly media conglomerate is not to create patterns of thought and behaviour, but to identify, respond to and exploit them. I would suggest that far from creating the idea of a teenaged girl being a sex object, as per your example, they are simply giving a rather large market what it wants.

Searching the seemier side of the internet for the term 'schoolgirl' illustrates the point rather starkly.

Zombrex

Blub2k4 wrote:

Do you understand what the question is asking in the title?

You seem to be asking does the marketing of teenagers and young adults in clothes considered "sexy" lead to the creation or encouragement of peadophilia. I've already answered that question, twice. The answer was no because that line of thought, in my view, shows a miss-understanding of the sexual orientation of a peadophile.

Blub2k4 wrote:

In the eyes of the law there is no difference between prepubescents and non when it comes to being caught with "Child porn".

In most countries in the world, including the UK and the US where most legitimate pornography is made, it is illegal for some under the age of 18 to be filmed or photographed in a production of pornographic material. It is illegal for someone to be in the possession of pornographic material that displays images of children under the ages of 18. This is considered child pornography, and it is why the legitamate porn studios in the UK and US go to great lengths to verify the ages of all their "actors", and why even with pornographic material that markets the young age of the actors they always carry disclaimers stating that all actors were over the age of consent (18) at the time the film or photographs were taken.

But Britney Spears dressing up in a Catholic School girl outfit, or Lindsey Lohan putting on short shorts and dancing around the MTV Film Awards, is not pornography, child or otherwise.

And I've yet to see any evidence or logic to say that watching Lindsey Lohan/Britney Spears on the telly or seeing the average 17 year old on a Saturday night heading into a school disco wearing a piece of dental floss for a dress, leads otherwise normal adults to desire to view illegal child pornography to partake in paedophilia.

But if there is actual evidence of this link I would be all ears.

Blub2k4 wrote:

Do you personally see a difference between pics of a pre-pubescent and an illegal teenager?

Pictures of what? As I said, is the mother-care catalog "child pornography" if a paedophile gets turned on by flicking through it.

For something to be pornography it has to display something pornographic.

metrovelvet

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongye taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta" [Nabokov]

Is the question about how responsible marketing is for peadophilia? Or is it just articulating a latant taste for nymphets that is already there in the culture?

I don't recall anyone being too outraged by Kevin Spacey's lust for Mena Suvari in American Beauty or Britney Spears shaking her booty in her uniform, a long standing fetish of American men who think Catholic girls are whores [note ethnic undertones to that stereotype]. But Elton John performing with the boyscouts... now there was a problem.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Dressing them up as adults would probably have little, if not a negative, effect on the peadophilia's desires toward the child.

Yes, but dressing the kids up in stuff that exposes alot of skin and/or emphisises erogenous zones probably will make them more attractive looking to a paedophile [paedophilia is a kind of twisted sexual orientation/fetish].

Adult's (esp. womens) favourite gear at this time and place tends to be that which puts the most flesh on view and accentuates "assets".

Wicknigh 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.

No it's not really that close at all. Adult women and men are not children. They are adults and can make their own judgements about the clothes they want to wear in any given situation, and have much better self-control than children do.
Please, don't make me cry by claiming I'm justifying rape or sexual assault or something...

As you said, children don't want to dress in a certain way to project their sexuality - they want to dress that way because they see adults dressing that way, marketers have convinced it is "cool", their peers reinforce that, and their parents give in to it. How can they project their sexuality when they don't understand it?
Again, as you said, Adults are the ones made uncomfortable.

Of course, in your world-view (which has made my head spin on other threads), if the children themselves see nothing wrong with wearing clothing that sexualises them --> there is nothing wrong with it really --> the adults just have to get over it.

I think that the uncomfortable adults are actually correct here. The children are wrong.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Forgetting the paedophiles who are adults anyway and must control their dangerous urges...

Wicknight, you were a boy once, weren't you (you mentioned it above anyway)?
Do you think your self-control has increased since then or not?
Have you not learned the rules of the game where women display acres of flesh and men should keep their eyes firmly on their faces until they have permission to leer or risk being branded scummy perverts/sexual harassers?
Were you worse or better at this game when you were 15 [taking into account that trends like visible thongs and tight jogging pants with slogans on the back were probably not around then:D ]?
I know I was ever so much worse at the game when I was 15...;) - if I even knew a "game" was afoot.
If you are 15 I do apologise!

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes, but dressing the kids up in stuff that exposes alot of skin and/or emphisises erogenous zones probably will make them more attractive looking to a paedophile [paedophilia is a kind of twisted sexual orientation/fetish].

Well there are a few big assumptions here.

Firstly, that assumes a paedophile's sexual orientation is similar to an adults, when most evidence seems to suggest its not. Paedophilia is not simply adult sexual desire transfered to children.

Secondly I would imagine what the child is wearing is the last thing on the paedophiles mind. The vast majority of sexual abuse with minors is planned, carried out over a long period of time and done by someone known to the child. Paedophilies don't choose their victims based on spur of the moment decisions like what the child is wearing at that instant. They choose their victims based on easy access and how likely they are going to be caught.

fly_agaric wrote:

No it's not really that close at all. Adult women and men are not children. They are adults and can make their own judgements about the clothes they want to wear in any given situation, and have much better self-control than children do.

Self-control with regard to what?

fly_agaric wrote:

How can they project their sexuality when they don't understand it?

Thats my point. They aren't because they don't have it yet.

fly_agaric wrote:

Of course, in your world-view (which has made my head spin on other threads), if the children themselves see nothing wrong with wearing clothing that sexualises them --> there is nothing wrong with it really --> the adults just have to get over it.

But its not sexualising them. They aren't having sex, they aren't attempting to attract men (or women) for sex, most don't even understand what real sexuality actually is.

The assumptions you make about why an adult wears sexy clothes (to attract others of the opposite sex) don't hold when applied to children. They are wearing them simply because of fashion.

fly_agaric wrote:

Forgetting the paedophiles who are adults anyway and must control their dangerous urges...

The idea that a paedophile would assault a child wearing what adults would call "sexy" clothes who he/she wouldn't otherwise assault, is frankly and a rather dangerous, and incorrect, assumption.

Just as the idea that a woman wearing sexy clothes provokes a rape that would not have otherwise happened shows a miss-understanding of the reasons rapes happen, assuming a child wearing sexy clothes provokes a sexual assault that would not have otherwise happened shows a miss-understanding of how paedophilia works.

I can certain understand why society would like to think it does, it gives us the false reassurance that we can control and protect our children from these dangers. If we don't let our children dress up like Britney or Lindsy they will be safe from the paedophiles. Its like the idea that if you know a sex offender lives in your area that will some how protect your children from the ten other paedophiles we don't know about in the area.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

fly_agaric wrote:

Have you not learned the rules of the game where women display acres of flesh and men should keep their eyes firmly on their faces until they have permission to leer or risk being branded scummy perverts/sexual harassers?

What? Is this going to turn into another rant against women and how they are all "teases"?

Are you saying you are worried that 15 year old boys are going to be branded sexual perverts because 15 year old girls dress up sexy and the boys can't help stare at them.

Sigh ... I'm not sure I could even be bother arguing against that idea ...

Blub2k4

Ok well Wicknight you appear to understand some of the issues but I would have to assume that you are incapable of joined up thinking, sorry but that's the way it seems. You seem to be taking the rest of it a bit personally so please take at least this as a neutral observation and not an insult.

Ok so let's define paedophilia then.

Do you think that people arrested and charged for viewing "child porn" as defined by yourself in a previous post:

Wicknight wrote:

In most countries in the world, including the UK and the US where most legitimate pornography is made, it is illegal for some under the age of 18 to be filmed or photographed in a production of pornographic material. It is illegal for someone to be in the possession of pornographic material that displays images of children under the ages of 18. This is considered child pornography, and it is why the legitamate porn studios in the UK and US go to great lengths to verify the ages of all their "actors", and why even with pornographic material that markets the young age of the actors they always carry disclaimers stating that all actors were over the age of consent (18) at the time the film or photographs were taken.

Are these people all guilty of paedophilia?

Zombrex

Blub2k4 wrote:

Do you think that people arrested and charged for viewing "child porn" as defined by yourself in a previous post:

Are these people all guilty of paedophilia?

No, because paedophilia is defined as a sexual act with a child. Its a crime, but you actually have to do it to be guilt of it.

What they would be guilty off is posession of child pornography, which also is a crime and quite rightly so.

Blub2k4 wrote:

I would have to assume that you are incapable of joined up thinking,

What you call "joined up thinking" I call unsubstantiated and ill-informed claims about the nature of paedophillia in an effort to give the false illusion that we are in control of the situation and that this is something we can do to protect our children.

But hey, apples and oranges ...

Blub2k4

Wicknight wrote:

No, because paedophilia is defined as a sexual act with a child. Its a crime, but you actually have to do it to be guilt of it.

What they would be guilty off is posession of child pornography, which also is a crime and quite rightly so.

Ok so, that's progress.

So are these people mentally ill or are they lured by the thrill of the forbidden, as is human nature?

Are they all mad or are they merely curious and enabled by the internet/mass media and their possession of a credit card?

Wicknight wrote:

What you call "joined up thinking" I call unsubstantiated and ill-informed claims about the nature of paedophillia in an effort to give the false illusion that we are in control of the situation and that this is something we can do to protect our children.

But hey, apples and oranges ...

So it's paedophilia now? Also stop being personal, your phraseology makes it look like I have an agenda, my only agenda is to discuss something in an adult manner, desist or bow out of the discussion please. I stayed away from this accusation before this, but this comment is too close to the bone.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

No, because paedophilia is defined as a sexual act with a child. Its a crime, but you actually have to do it to be guilt of it.

It’s not. Pedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children. Child pornography would cover any material depicting a child as defined as a person under the age of majority.

Again I would contend that when discussing an alleged increase in the former as demonstrated by the latter that you take into account that they are not the same thing. This is something you have not done.

TBH, I think it very difficult for people to develop informed opinions if they have not actually informed themselves of the facts in the first place.

Zombrex

Blub2k4 wrote:

So are these people mentally ill or are they lured by the thrill of the forbidden, as is human nature?

Paedophilies?

It is a sexual orientation abnormality, and seems to have many causes, from biology reaons like genetics to environmental like previous abuse.

Blub2k4 wrote:

Are they all mad or are they merely curious and enabled by the internet/mass media and their possession of a credit card?

If you are asking do they all abuse children as well as viewing child pornography, the answer is probably no, not all pedophiles actually abuse children. Though that is of course impossible to tell in such a general question.

Blub2k4 wrote:

So it's paedophilia now?

What is it?

This is getting very confusing because I think you don't actually understand the definitions you are using, and I foolishly attempted to work under your assumptions.

Lets start again.

Paedophilia is the paraphilia (sexual orientation) of being arroused by a pre-pubescent child. Someone with this orientation is a pedophile.

Technically being arosed by child pornography is pedophilia, but not in the criminal context you were using it. Paedophilia in this medical sense is not a crime, it is a condition. You are not guilty or innocent of it. You cannot be arrested for being a pedophile.

Paedophilia with relation to an actual crime is the sexual abuse of a pre-pubescent child. So when you say "are they guilty of pedophilia" that is what, I assumed, you were talking about.

The reason chlid pornography is illegal is not because pedophilies become arosed by it, it is because by definition a child had to be abused in the making of it.

I would also point out, as I think TC did already, paedophilia concerns only the arosal due to pre-pubscent children.

If a man is getting turned on by watching someone like Britney Spears or Lindsy Lohan dancing around a stage, that is not pedophilia. It is ephebophilia, the arosual of post-pubscent adolesant. They are different conditions. And it is arguable if it is even ephehophilia, since personalities like Spears or Lohan are quite physically developed, as much as you would find in an early adult.

So what exactly are you talking about here? You seem to be purposefully trying to trip me up.

What exactly do you think I'm saying that you find so objectionable? Do you think I am attempting to condone child pornography or something?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s not. Pedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children.

You are, as always, correct TC

I used that definition because Blub2k4 was using the term in relation to a crime, and in general use paedophilia when used in relation to a crime is the sexual abuse of a child.

Blub2k4 was using the term as a verb, when paedophilia is not something you do it is technically something that happens to you (arosual in response to something)

The common use of paedophilia as a verb in relation to a crime is sexual abuse of a child, though as you point out this is technically incorrect.

So I will only use the technically correct definitions from now on, and hope it doesn't lead to even more confusion

The Corinthian wrote:

TBH, I think it very difficult for people to develop informed opinions if they have not actually informed themselves of the facts in the first place.

I whole heartly agree with that statement!

Especially considering, as I think you have already pointed out, I think Blub2k4 is actually talking about ephebophilia, rather than paedophilia.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly, that assumes a paedophile's sexual orientation is similar to an adults, when most evidence seems to suggest its not. Paedophilia is not simply adult sexual desire transfered to children.

I assumed it was a deviant sexual orientation - that was all.
If it is sexual desire is it not stimulated by seeing the object of attraction in revealing clothes? Am I wrong about this?

Wicknight wrote:

Secondly I would imagine what the child is wearing is the last thing on the paedophiles mind. The vast majority of sexual abuse with minors is planned, carried out over a long period of time and done by someone known to the child. Paedophilies don't choose their victims based on spur of the moment decisions like what the child is wearing at that instant. They choose their victims based on easy access and how likely they are going to be caught.

I didn't think that a paedophile would single out X child because of the way they are dressed and I never said that. Obviously, if they decide to break the law, getting away with it is their biggest concern.

What I was thinking about was the effect of dressing children in this way on the mental state of paedophiles. I would worry that it may make them more likely to act on their urges.

I suppose this like the unproven (AFAIK) belief that the wrong kind of people can be made more likely to commit acts of violence or sexual assault by watching excessive amounts of ultra-violent films/very hardcore pornography. No doubt you will now say "I don't know why I bother" etc etc

Wicknight wrote:

Self-control with regard to what?

Apologies. I was trying to fit two ideas into that paragraph.
The self-control bit was referring to men vs boys - as per the end of the post.

Wicknight wrote:

But its not sexualising them.

Here we go again - more "the child's perspective is equally (or in this case more?) valid" garbage arising from your extreme relativist take on the world.

The children for their own [or marketers'] reasons wear clothes that would be attractive in a sexual way if an adult was wearing them - creating the discomfort and unease among adults which you referred to and then dismissed.

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that a paedophile would assault a child wearing what adults would call "sexy" clothes who he/she wouldn't otherwise assault, is frankly and a rather dangerous, and incorrect, assumption.

Where did I make that assumption? My only assumption [using normal sexual attractions as a reference] was that the paedophile would be stimulated by seeing the child dressed in revealing clothes. Again - is this wrong?
Of course they won't act on it at that particular moment with that particular child unless they badly want to go to jail.

Wicknight wrote:

If we don't let our children dress up like Britney or Lindsy they will be safe from the paedophiles.

The irony is that both the obsession with the dangers of paedophiles (you never know where they might strike!) and the sexualisation of children are both modern sicknesses. I wonder if they are related?

Wicknight wrote:

What? Is this going to turn into another rant against women and how they are all "teases"?

I'm sure nothing like that will happen to this thread under your eagle-eye.:rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote:

Are you saying you are worried that 15 year old boys are going to be branded sexual perverts because 15 year old girls dress up sexy and the boys can't help stare at them.

No - I have other worries at the moment. I was just trying to show that 15 year old boys may have less self-control than adult men when confronted with scantily-clad members of the opposite sex.

It may cause unwanted actions (leering, comments, maybe even touching...) which would indeed be considered sexual harassment at least, if it were a man doing the same to a woman in the work place.

Dudess

Paedophiles find children desirable - their childlike qualities, their innocence. These are the very things that arouse them. Paedophiles are not going to be turned on by a kid whose appearance has adult qualities. They are only going to be interested in an undeveloped kid wearing children's clothing, doing kiddie stuff. It's missing the point to assume that teenage girls who are underage, yes, but still have a womanly appearance, are going to do it for paedophiles. The Britneys, Billies etc are likely to appeal to middle-aged, heterosexual men. And isn't that inevitable when they're made up to look like women? Of course it's most unappetising to think of a grandfather getting turned on by jailbait, but that doesn't make him a paedophile.

ferdi

man i hate these little girls aged 10 - 14 being dressed up like slappers by their parents. mini skirts, hooker bootes, boobtubes. its sick and wrong. the manufactures of these clothes should be closed down and the parents done for abuse.

fly_agaric

Dudess wrote:

Paedophiles find children desirable - their childlike qualities, their innocence. These are the very things that arouse them. Paedophiles are not going to be turned on by a kid whose appearance has adult qualities. They are only going to be interested in an undeveloped kid wearing children's clothing, doing kiddie stuff. It's missing the point to assume that teenage girls who are underage, yes, but still have a womanly appearance, are going to do it for paedophiles. The Britneys, Billies etc are likely to appeal to middle-aged, heterosexual men. And isn't that inevitable when they're made up to look like women? Of course it's most unappetising to think of a grandfather getting turned on by jailbait, but that doesn't make him a paedophile.

Interesting. It is funny that [the idea that paedophiles might have a preference for a "childish" child and the tacky adult clothing would go against that] hadn't occurred to me.
Maybe this means I don't understand how paedophiles think very well.

That make me feel a bit better - even if it doesn't particularly help my arguments against young children being dressed up in sleazy adult gear.:D