Discussion in 'General Industry Related Topics' started by fishfry, Aug 13, 2001.
Re: I've Raised 2 Teenage Girls Myself
I've Raised 2 Teenage Girls Myself
Being a parent, especially for teenage girls, is not an easy thing. My girls are now both grown and on their own. JC, the worst to come is when they reach their teen years, as I'm sure Skelly is coming to realize. As parents, we are responsible to be aware, not necessisarily control, our teenage kids. We must remain alert for dangers signals and that means learning just what those danger signals are. You can't truly control another human being. Once the umbilical cord is cut, they are individuals.Just look, listen, learn and offer the best advice you can and they will turn out great. At least mine did.
JC - I felt much the same way when my daughter was 7 and I still have apprehension now but no longer dread it because I relaized I can't shelter her her whole life but have to work with her to equip her to deal with life (and boys that were like me at that age and on into my teens). I've actually have become more open-minded about it than my wife.
I am dreading the days to come when my seven year old daughter (who thinks I am the strongest, wisest, funniest and most handsome man in the world) starts to experiment with her sexuality and starts potentially becoming prey to such boys as I was. It's so much simpler when they are still satisfied to go see "The Princess Diaries" and win the right to put fake nails on for the day.
Prevention starts at home. I have a 14 year old daughter and while to a very great degree I can't control what happens in the outside world I can control how my daughter is raised and the shaping of her values. I rear her with a firm hand (so to speak) but with an open one. None of this "Because I say so" or "Not until you're out of my house" She's a child yes, but now old enough to understand and certainly deserve an explanation of the rules I set and expect her to live by. ANd I have to be open enough to let her make her own arguments with respect to those. She usually doesn't convince me because her arguments can be a 14yr olds ("Because....." "Everyone else is doing it, etc.) but she has convinced me on occassion. And it no longer suprises me.
I can't force her to talk to me but she damn well knows she can about anything. I made her a promise long ago that I would never get angry (disappointed yes, hurt yes) about anything she voluntarily came to me to discuss. And she has talked to me, for which I am quite happy.
She knows that she has to earn the greater freedoms she wants by demonstrating responsibility first. I know that stuff can happen and that she will exercise bad judgment (Lord knows I did as a teen), but the only thing we can really do is work really hard at instilling in them decent values and to use their brains and to equip them the best we can.
I used to live in Los Angeles where they had these photo days, where dozens of aspiring teenage models and geeky middle-aged amateur photographers would get together in a public park and shoot photos. These events always had a slightly sleazy undertone and the image that always amused me the most would be all these guys falling all over each other to take photos of some little miss thing in her bikini.
Many of the girls were accompanied by their mothers, who figured this was their daughter's ticket to the big time. A little 14 year old Lolita wannabe would be strutting around in a short tight dress and spiky heels while mom looked on and encouraged her to give it all up to the camera.
So Slink, when you are in charge, how are you going to restrain the naive ambition of these little girls and keep them chaste?
Who's Really Responsible?
Just supposing that kids (girls) get a web site up on their own without the knowledge or approval of their parents. They post pictures and esolicit guys to send them stuff. How do the parents miss the signs that "stuff" the didn't buy or authorize is now around the house? How can they not know something is amiss? Wouldn't missing such warning signs be indicative of a parental neglect?
Next is it illegal for a child to initiate publication of online smut and solicitation? Is it a violation of law? Do people who provide "free" web site have any liability in this regard? Or are we saying saying kids can apply and get their own domain name and find an ISP who will let them put up such a page. In that case are they not responsible? Who is supposed to be policing this stuff?
KS - porn has been legally defined as somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. Nude children do not in and of themselves constitute child porn (as witnessed by David Hamilton). Nor do clothed children constitute not porn (as evidenced by the succesful prosecution of a website that featured pictures such as the ones you mentioned interspersed with pornographic stories involving children). In fact, you don't even need kids to have child porn (drawings or representations have led to convictions). As Slinky mentions, the necessary ingrediant is intent.
Adolescents have always explored and exhibited their sexuality. In the past, however, the world of adolescents was largely segregated from the one of adults. The 'net changes that and allows for anonymous interaction between teens and lecherous adults. This is the problem. Society (by and large) accepts that it's kids are going to exhibit sexuality, however society (in my opinion correctly) does not want adults involved in this exhibition. The question is how do you allow one, and prevent the other? I believe that this, rather than any other issue, is the crux of the problem.
(Although I do agree that society has oversexualized its kids)
These sites look pretty tame and innocent to me. Basically, these girls don't REALLY understand what sexuality is, yet. And, they're still young enough to believe in Santa Claus, so to speak.
If you really want to creep yourself out, do a search for "teen models." Ignore the obvious "barely legal" porn pages - those are adult women in pigtails. Instead, look at the sites that actually have pictures of 13-year-old girls in bikinis. Trying, in the words of PJ O'Rourke "their puppyish best to look sexy."
These girls think they're going to be models! They really do. They don't know WHY they're being photographed in super-short schoolgirl skirts, clutching teddy bears.
None of those sites, as far as I can tell, actually are porn, as none of them have nudity. So, they're legal. But, they're creepy all the same.
I liked Darlene.
The difference is in intent. Now, I know how hard it is to ascertain intent, but I truly beilve that the intent on these sites is clear. That's the difference. If i had any reason to belive that the producers of Mickey's Clubhouse were purposely targeting middle aged men's fantasies, I'd would have the same opinion of that show.
And yes, I am against taking 14 year old "models" and trying to "make them up" to look as slutty and "adult" as possible. Did you ever see any of the photos of the contestants in the "beauty pageants" that Jon-Benet Ramsey competed in ??? Disgusting.
I do see your point. But should the Mickey Mouse show have been busted for child porn? When I was growing up every kid in school had the hots for Annette Funicello. And looking back, I'm pretty sure that more than one middle-age guy must have been watching that show getting a woody. Those sweaters were always a little too tight against those breasts.
Ditto Calvin Klein bus ads showing emaciated ******** waify heroin user looking kids of both sexes.
I actually agree with you. Sex is for adults. Kids are way too sexualized in the current culture, and teen cams are just one more manifestation of that.
So is it all Madonna's fault when she started wearing her lingerie outside her clothes and all the 14 year olds picked up on the fashion without understanding the subtext?
"Hey, there have been arrests of guys for talking about going on "sex tours".
Slinky, exactly when/where was this - and the rationale or laws that justified it? That seems like an violation of first amendement....
I've seen some of them. They are porn in many respects, the most compelling of which is that they are sexually enticing websites of minors, replete with phrases such as "******** piece of ass" ( joke or no-joke ). Just because there's not phots or mpegs of penises going into vaginas doesn't exmept it. Hey, there have been arrests of guys for talking about going on "sex tours". Why are sites which actually entice the sexual objectification of minors to be exempted ?? It doesn't matter if it's the minors exploiting themselves. These minors and/or their parents are allowing acts which put other minors in danger, by setting in motion potential acts by predators, and furthering the concept that "children are sexual beings" and that "they want it" ( just take a look at some of the NAMBLA literature and you'll see what I mean ).
These aren't porn. In most cases they're innocent shots, fully clothed. Even then, guys send gifts. It's basic to our psychology that men buy stuff for women.
How would you propose to stop it? Kids can throw up a web page so easily and in most cases are much more technologically advanced than their parents.
I would start by punishing the three LI'ers to the maximum extent of the law and then add 50%.
Just after the incident where the couple from Farmingdale met the 15 year old girl through the internet, someone should stop this right away.
Slinky-You Are So Correct
You are so correct on this one. Having 2 girls of my own-I agree.
The kids AND THEIR PARENTS should be prosecuted under the same laws that anyone else who offers child pornography is.
There is a fascinating article in today's Salon about teen cams. These are websites in which 14 year old girls put up a few photos and a wish list of what they want, and older men send the girls gifts.
It's the psychological basis of our hobby.
Separate names with a comma.