«

»

Apr 18 2006

He Touched My Special Gray Area

NOTE: Due to the swelling of engorged perv traffic generated by this post, I have removed the photo and links to the teen “modeling” sites. You fucking morons.

Today’s regurgitational: perfectly legal proto-porn “modeling” sites consisting of pre-teen nubiles costumed in dude-sex-fantasy-wear striking lascivious poses. Pervs with hard-ons for fourth-graders subscribe to these sites just like they subscribe to any other porn site, but apparently, because the kids aren’t fully naked or dismembered or taking it up the ass—at least in the photos— the law doesn’t consider it kiddie porn, or even exploitation. It’s a “gray area.”

The lip curls. The laugh is mirthless.

To recap: Regular readers will recall—not necessarily fondly—my fairly ceaseless discourse on the myth of women’s “empowerment” as expressed through the “right” to appeal to male fantasy by appearing naked or dismembered or taking it up the ass on camera; my view is that if women’s orifices were not universally seen as the property of male prurience, porn would cease to exist and sex would just be sex. I further assert that if so many of the women in the sex trade weren’t trapped there because the dominant culture has deprived them of opportunities to exist outside the sexbot continuum, pictures of humans fucking would have all the exciting titillational allure of photos of copulating slugs.

But our culture’s fascination for dominance and submission turns women into commodified fetish objects. This means sex isn’t just sex, it’s the eroticization of a culturally enforced power differential. Women aren’t fully human, but are instead just a collection of moist holes into which men not only can, but must ejaculate their hatred, their frustration, their fear, their crushing sense of inferiority, and whatever other vulgar impulses drive them to dominate anything that moves. Hence three honky college boys got no problem raping the black woman they paid to subserviently fluff their boners. Honky boys raping black women is a venerable American custom.

Although without its issues of caste and race the aforementioned rape wouldn’t have been so prime-time sensational, I blame the patriarchy’s beloved pornocracy for the fact that it happened at all. Even so, I am, with certain niggling reservations, against an outright ban on porn, since banning things never makes them go away, and in fact often seems to have the opposite effect. Along those lines, I regularly toast the possibility of the decriminalization of prostitution. Since the Twistolution is unlikely to transpire, the next best thing would be to take the criminal focus off the prostitutes, whose choices, compared with those of the male fucktards who pay them to do the humiliating shit to which few fully sovereign beings would submit for free, are ridiculously limited, and to start holding sex consumers to account for cultivating their own degraded humanity.

Of course, that’s not gonna happen either, because where pussy is concerned, sick fucks masquerading as authoritay figures make the rules.

These sick fuck rules appear to guarantee a man’s right to the aforementioned prepubescent protoporn. Goddammit, I fucking draw the line at the sexploitation of nine-year-old girls. I note, after washing down an ativan with a large glass of Spanish rosado to steady the old obstreperal lobe, that nobody on the planet has less power than a female child, and that this “modeling” crap is some of the most supremely bogus shit I’ve seen. I have no qualms asserting that criminalizing this craptacularly repellent bit of “freedom of expression” would scratch a major a patriarchy-blaming itch here at Twisty HQ.

Who are the parents of these little arch-backed Ambers and Jessicas, and why do they think it’s okay to parade them around in their underwear before an internetful of pedophiles? Of course. It’s for “college money.” It’s to promote their “modeling careers.” It’s to (I kid you not) share recipes for “an excellent salmon dish.”

As an aside, I would like to point out that I had a hell of a time figuring out how to label that photo without turning it into a perv magnet. You can’t type the word “girl” into a search engine and not get porn, and you can’t label a photo “exploited girls” without sending out a siren call to the world’s greasy little salivating pencil-dicks. In the end I decided to call it “sweat socks.”

As another aside, I would like to remark that my questionable decision to link to these sites is going to cost me my appetite for the next day or two.

[Gracias Kate]

79 comments

5 pings

  1. Kate

    “Who are the parents of these little arch-backed Ambers and Jessicas, and why do they think it’s okay to parade them around in their underwear before an internetful of pedophiles? Of course. It’s for “college money.””

    That’s exactly the thought that comes to my mind when I am ever subjected to any girl-child who is mugged up this way, or is dressed like a miniature glamour girl and told to flaunt it for the approving ‘judges’ or whatever, or sit down and not play and not get dirty and be good. Or girl-children who have mothers that set the same narrow view of women as examples of women-hood for them to emulate.

    At such times my brain ceases to function in a rational matter and I start having those unhealthy fantasies about beating such fucktard parents until they cry out repentence.

    Why doesn’t Maury (a talk show last I knew devoted exclusively to shaming women who got pregnant and multiple partners) devote his show to shaming the parents who put their girls up to such behavior? “Mrs. Smith, we see you had your daughter pose like this.” [holds up picture and audience gasps] “can you tell us for what purpose you allow your daughter to be exploited?”

    I want to see them try to explain and then I want to strangle each one with my own bare hands.

    In other words, I can’t find anything cogent to say about this that everyone doesn’t already know here.

    Fucking fucktards and a lot if not most of the parents doing this to their daughters are women. Department of Children’s Services will routinely pick on poor parents about keeping their house clean or taking their medication (stories I’ve heard I swear), but leave alone a middle class, ignorant fucktard parent who pimps their child before the pedo-porn industry, all in the guise of modeling.

    Sick. Now I have to do some work.

  2. Kate

    I was 13 when I first had sex, drunk at a party for a friend. We thought we were grown up. We were just children.

    Looking at those pictures in particular brings that back to me. No one has ever said that 13 was too young for sexual activity.

    Our society finds sex with young girls just fine. That’s a fact, despite impotent protestations to the opposite.

  3. Tam

    Feeling ill. What is WRONG with these parents? Those poor girls. Those poor, poor girls…

  4. yami

    In the “gray area modeling” cases I’m familiar with, it wasn’t the parents, it was the sixth-grade teacher’s husband, who took each student out to a lonely part of the playground to take “mother’s day photos” – and then was never charged with kiddie porn anything, because the gray areas were covered. He did get the shit sued out of him, and so did the school district, but only because he’d done it twice before and they hadn’t bothered to keep him off school grounds.

  5. drublood

    I held my breath and clicked the link and…

    exhaled.

    Because here at the local school district, that site is labeled PORNOGRAPHY.

    nice.

  6. Vibrating Liz

    Poor babies. It just makes me want to cry.

  7. TP

    For once, I have to criticize: I would not have bothered to link to such abominations. It’s not as if we don’t believe such sickness exists. Linking to sites like this means something to the mindless bots that count such things at Google, for example. It lends a statistical shade of legitimacy to such a thing.

    I have no other logical conclusion to reach other than the parents of these children were themselves the victims of similar juvenile sexualization or even abuse. Why else would they think it was OK? Those of us who cherish the memories of living in sex-free paradise as a child can only see the horror.

    I remember laughing and making stupid jokes about sex as a kid and I thank god I was lucky enough that I never had an adult wake me up to the full horror of it before my time.

  8. RJ

    sex isn’t just sex, it’s the eroticization of a culturally enforced power differential.

    That’s the best single sentence I’ve read in a long time. I may have to find a way to work it into a post just because it so concisely sums up just a whole lot of shit. I love how smart you are.

  9. Pony

    No! no Tp. I want every sick fuck who googles this shit to come up agin’ our Twisty.

    WHAT SHE SAID !! Moji Cris Tabernac .

    WHAT SHE SAID !!

  10. stekatz

    I don’t get the parents either. Something somewhere has gone terribly, terribly wrong with these girls parents. Undoubtedly, girls do get exploited like this without their parents’ knowledge. However, even with the blurriness, one can see these are studio photos. Someone had to drive these little girls to that studio.

    I don’t get it at all. Again, if they have mothers, those mothers are mentally ill. For myself, I f**kin’ PITY THE FOOL who would ever suggest doing such a thing with my daughter. This mama bear takes no prisoners. I’ve been know to stop and stare down men on the street for so much as glancing at my daugher.

    There is no gray area as far as I’m concerned.

    I just wish I could change that Blame button to a Release Pack of Angry German Shepherds button.

    Not on you Twisty. Bert would just want to play with them all anyway.

  11. Annie

    The hurlometer tilts in response. Nothing gray about this area…it’s green bile! What parent allows this? Ostensibly the same one (my cousin for example) who goes to Target or Walmart and buys a leopard print bikini for her 6 year old so the wee one can look just like Mom! Next time you’re in a store, check out the duds for little girls. Shorts with things like “Hot Stuff” “Meow” etc written across the breast or ass. Go to the toy aisle and find Bratz dolls (little botox lips and all) dressed in hip huggers and low cut tees, etc. The “models” that Moms hand out like candy on a regular basis are revolting! Trust me; I know from revolting. Sadly, I am not shocked to see this. I’m just disgusted because it is everywhere just waiting to erupt in the life of some little girl you know.

  12. lcgillies

    This means sex isn’t just sex, it’s the eroticization of a culturally enforced power differential.

    Less rhetorically, it’s not sex at all, at least as sex might exist after the Twistolution (which is what you are saying). That is one huge source of political confusion: it’s NOT sex but IS an expression of a culturally enforced power differential.

    Imagine, for a moment, “catalog” of fashion displayed (professionally photographed) on the bodies of lynched black folk. That would cause a bit of an uproar. There is no basic difference here except for the kind of object/victim. To loop back on the regurgitational for today, making porn illegal might be better compared to making hate speech illegal, or incitement to race rioting illegal. I’m not so much equating the “free-speech” issues as I am the nature of the content.

  13. norbizness

    I’m no fan of federal entrapment, but for once, I wish this WERE an elaborate sting by federal authorities to weed out too-evil-to-live parents and ch!ld-p*rn enthusiasts (you don’t need the extra traffic). The alternative is pretty well near the edge of what I’d like to contemplate.. and I scored in the 99th percentile of the Horror Contemplation Test.

  14. Pony

    It’s one of my research projects. All the manifestations of the words I won’t type. But let me try to tell you some of what I’ve found, begining with the most “mainstream”.

    People (men I assume) because some use soodonyms, and you can’t be sure, who call themselves Libertarians (which I understand is a political party in the U.S.) discussing why there should be any ‘age of consent’, scoffingly asking ‘how much under age of consent’ re a court case, and saying age of consent is “whatever age the person is that gives consent’. Wrap your minds around that one.

    Then (thanks Liz) I googled some words GGAV said came up on her site meter, and found a long list of porn related to one of the words in Liz’ blog name. They were free. I hit on several randomly. They were all sickening. Who is so powerless as a child Twisty? Well how about your 87 year old grandmother in a nursing home? A series of photos showing madam who I will bet my last dollar was sedated, being fucked in the ass, twisted into various positions, and posed in various f**k shots both vaginal and anal. I tell you the positions would be very painful for a woman that age. She would have had to be out to get her like that. All with her eyes closed, of several only one not lying down in bed. Were these nursing attendents in this hospital or nursing home?

    Then, I changed two words in the google search and found a site of free pron which looked to be a college party. The girl, rather young, appeared drugged. Several men in turn used her. She barely seemed awake/alive.

    Another click and I got into a site where there was a free video. I clicked and watched a Quicktime video of a couple f**king. I watched it twice because the girl said something and I didn’t catch it. She was very small, not more than 14, on the bed, with her bottom toward the middle of the shot. She kept looking up and back at someone, which I finally realized was the camera. Each time she looked up and then toward the f**kee, she said barely audible “Daddy”

    There’s more. And, as biting beaver says in one of her posts, it’s all from the free f**k girl. Not even paid to be drenched in cum and f**k her pa (or a facsimile for those who get off on that).

  15. Burrow Klown

    Oh good god. I’m going to explode. After reading that last comment I forgot what I was going to say. Excuse me I need to go vomit now.

  16. Occasional Expositor

    Twisty – have you heard about the Swedish approach to prostitution? Check out this government publication here.

    Opening paragraph:

    In Sweden, prostitution is regarded as an aspect of male violence against women and children. It is officially acknowledged as a form of exploitation of women and children that constitutes a significant social problem, which is harmful not only to the individual prostituted woman or child, but also to society at large.

    And further:

    Since January 1, 1999, purchasing – or attempting to purchase – sexual services has constituted a criminal offence punishable by fines or up to six months imprisonment. The women and children who are victims of prostitution and trafficking do not risk any legal repercussions.

    Yay Sweden.

  17. sunnyfreakingday

    My boss’s partner was recently shopping for summer clothes for her 10-year-old daughter, and called her up while we were working. She was ranting and raving about how all of the female-children’s clothing she found was completely inappropriate for a 10-year-old.

    I don’t know an appropriate term to describe society’s acceptance of the sexualization of young girls, but I know that it is a particularly disgusting aspect of living. Period.

  18. flea1

    Those parents know damned well those sites aren’t going to help their daughter’s “modelling career.” Ford, Elite, and Wilhelmina have all repeatedly issued statements that they will not consider any girl for their agency that has one of these “Little Amber” sites. And if you don’t have a chance of getting represented by one of those agencies, you’re not going to be a model.

    Years ago somebody forwarded me one of those “preteen personal modelling” sites, and I called the police and reported it. He pulled the web site up on his computer and we looked at it together. By looking at the candid photos she had up, it took us less than ten minutes to figure out that she lived in Florida, because one of the photos was taken in front of her elementary school, with the name of the school on a sign off to the side. The elementary school had its class photos on-line, so in another few minutes we found her real name. Once we found her real name, we googled her last name and the city and found her address.

    Nice, isn’t it? And perfectly legal.

  19. Pony

    How about a website devoted to filling us in on what is ‘age of consent’ in various jurisdicitons, states, countries. In case any one wants to take a vacation, maybe. A male poster whines about searching around until he found a state which had a particular age of consent, arranging to meet a girl there who lived there and was that age (he met her in a chat room) and it turned out she was just under the age of consent and he was caught! Can you imagine his horror and feeling of betrayal? Eh? The rest of the post was asking for info about how he could avoid such difficulties in the future. Another post or four were concerned with the unmitigated gall of law enforcement to nail men who travel to a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 12, and then get arrested on their return because it’s the age in their home jurisdiction which applies. And you thought it was only aging Brit rock stars.

  20. Annie

    Ok, having dosed myself with anti-emetic I have been able to further reflect on this sickening business a bit more. Using Twisty’s Matrix theory as a foundation, I’m further repulsed by the honky Capitalist element of this supposed gray area of porn. Let’s just say that these little girls were paid for their time. Money for college. Money to buy a car. Money to buy a damned Barbie. Whatever. The real sick fact of the thing is that girls are co-opted into a system that has both the power to pay them for sex or just take it from them. Either way, they are fucked.

  21. Edith

    People, people. Don’t blame the parents. Blame the patriarchy. Remember, the parents are victims of the patriarchy too. If they know about these kinds of sites, they think they’re helping their daughters grow up with healthy sexualities and they’re being good parents by encouraging their daughters’ dreams of becoming models.

    If they don’t know, they don’t know. Did your parents know everything about you? Were they bad parents, or rather, bad parents because of that?

    I’m convinced that site IS child porn. I’ve seen people talk about it on other blogs a lot. It’s masquerading as a “child model” site. It’s not. It’s porn that so far has gotten around child pornography laws.

  22. Annie

    Incidentally, you may be further sickened to know, there is little chance of vanquishing pornography, particularly this sort of “legalized” porn. For my money, this crap exists because of accepted ideologies that allow for very few taboos, especially where the exploitation of women is concerned. Postmodern ideology doesn’t like to say “No, that can’t happen; it’s against the rules!” because within our 20th and 21st Century culture we refuse absolutes in favor of liberty. There is, then, no possibility of saying, “This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable!” so…some moron parents are perfectly within their legal rights to send little Tiffany off to the photographer in a bikini, or to dancing class in metallic pink hot pants, or to the Little Miss My Parents Are Desensitized, Capitalist Idiots Beauty Pageant.

  23. mycrust

    AUGH.

    I feel routinely sickened by whatever twisted combination of patriarchy, consumerism and plain old biology is responsible for the production of hetero male desire.

    By the way, back when you wrote that item about the “Brittney Spears on the bear rug” sculpture, I was tempted to post a link I found to a photograph of piece from the “money shot” angle, as it were. I think these links demonstrate the nausea potential of doing something like that, so I guess I’m glad I didn’t.

  24. thebewilderness

    Annie,
    That was my thought too. I think the parents of these children may be exploiting them for money.

  25. Annie

    Ya gotta wonder, though, bewilderness. Is it only about money or does ego play a role too? I have just about come around to believing that there’s also a kind of narcissism involved here involved, one that feeds on mimicry and vicarious “corrections” of history. I think this is the space from which women like my cousin feed the patriarchy’s insatiable desire for sex. I have seen so many women who use their daughter’s beauty to scratch some itch relative to their own. It’s really gross. How else could we explain why so many parents sit proudly in the audience at dance recitals where their lovely little daughters are dressed like little sex kittens and grinding their little pelvi to the music? As a culture, it seems that we have come to consider this sort mimicry of adult sexuality as “cute” and “entertaining” so it stands to reason that parents are willing to sign their little girls up for photo shoots where 9 year olds do their best impressions of Kate Moss. UGH!!! I will not be able to sleep now.

  26. KH

    I get the “oh, your child should be modeling!” crap from strangers (random, non-modeling-agency types) all the time, and my daughter is only 3 and a half. I tell them I’d never damn effing consider it, and then they dangle the “college money” at me.

    My daughter has asked me several times why people “look” at her, and I have a hard time figuring out how to respond to her without dementing her mind.

    I’m feeling a little hopeless about the sexploitative partriarchal matrix after this post and comment thread.

    There’s nowhere far enough to move, no deserted island, no futuristic undersea exploration platform, no fucking anywhere.

  27. jenofiniquity

    As a culture, it seems that we have come to consider this sort mimicry of adult sexuality as “cute” and “entertaining” so it stands to reason that parents are willing to sign their little girls up for photo shoots where 9 year olds do their best impressions of Kate Moss.

    Annie, and at the same time, we’re in such an absolute panic about child molestation that many elementary schools run background checks on all their volunteers, 99.9% of which are women. I don’t know the statistics, but I’ll guess that the percentage of women who molest elementary-age children is very low.

    In any case, the mind boggles at the cultural disconnect: My conservative xtian sister allows her 9-year-old daughter to wear what this liberal heathen considers to be only slightly modified “fuck me” shoes, and very adult-looking clothes, yet she’s teaching her to be modest (read: ashamed of her body) and virginal until her wedding day.

  28. Christopher

    Of course, the biggest problem with any laws against porn are subjectivity. Does any nude scene count? Any scene of sexual intercourse? Do we pull a mohammed and just ban all portrayals of women?

    I’m sure as hell not going to click on that link, but I’m curious as to how exactly you’d write up a law to ban this shit.

    Because it needs to be stopped.

  29. stekatz

    “I’m sure as hell not going to click on that link, but I’m curious as to how exactly you’d write up a law to ban this shit.”

    I’ll write that law.

  30. R. Mildred

    What really makes me sick (and the merely blurred pictures I’m not clicking, strong stomached for many thigns but legal pedo crap) is that the main reason shit like this exists is because hte parents are making a killing from it.

    It’s like the child beauty show winning sites I heard about ages ago, where they have the 5 – 8 year old kids posing like this, it’s a money making scheme that makes the whole “exploitation of child workers” thing visible (unlike amberchromby&finch’s 100%-Garunteed-made-by-exploited-children-ware, where it’s almost invisible) I mean, ugh, eww *goes completely incoherent*.

    If Bush hadn’t fucked the economy up so many poor parents wouldn’t be having ot rely on pseudo-pedo-porn for cash.

    I blame Bush and the Patriarchy he rode in on!

  31. scratchy888

    ‘Merkins are strange.

  32. tigtog

    And of course for another side of fetishing the sexual parts of pre-pubescent girls, you can always rely on South Dakota.

  33. Annie

    stekatz, I’m no apologist for the presidency, but a lot of people who drown their daughters in make-up and send ‘em down to the Ain’t I Lovely show have PLENTY of money…see the whole f’n horror story on Jon Benet Ramsey…blood boiling. It costs a packet to participate in some of these things, and the parents have it. I’m just guessing that in the more OBVIOUS PORN, like that foul vomit inducing shit pointed out by Twisty, it’s actually fairly inexpensive (on a relative basis) to get your unsuspecting 9 year old involved.

    The necessity of blaming 1st thing in the morning and before coffee is disheartening, but we must do it early and often.

  34. Kate

    Pony, I don’t know if you are in the US, but here in the US a lot of what you described would be fodder for the FBI or the National Center for Missing and Expolited Children.

    I went to a blog a few months ago that had a bunch of humorous videos, some of which I downloaded to send to friends. Afterwards, I shut off my computer and went to bed. THe next morning, upon turning on my computer, I found all my web ‘history’ gone and in its place a plethora of child porn sites, many of which looked like real rape scenes or just real child porn. I called over my son, my IT man, who said something about the links being carried in the background of my downloads or something (with the admonishment “Don’t Ever download anything mom, jeez…”), i dunno, because understanding how computers and software works is something i don’t worry about too much (his assistance keeps him living under mum’s roof in part). So he fixed my computer back to original and I sent the links to the NCMEC, on a page they had set up for reporting such sites.

    The host site was taken down within 24 hours and then came back after another 24 hours, without the many links in the sidebar (that my son said should have tipped me off to the site’s intentions, even though they were legal sites that I by the way, did not go to anyway) and with a huge disclaimer and information about his ‘lawyer’ friend.

    I have many times had bombs of child porn sent to me or unwittingly stepped into a child porn site, disguised under a search about ‘child sexual abuse’ or whatever and have always reported them. I don’t know if much happens, but I’ll be damned if i just sit by and let them carry on without trying to do something.

    ********

    My impression and what I’ve seen on my own is that most of these ‘modeling’ exploits are carried out by middle class parents, not in an effort to make subsistence cash, but in a seriously misguided effort to give their daughters a ‘leg up’ on the competition to stardom.

    I know all too well also about the over sexualization of girl ‘fashions’. I can tell you that because I did not have a man in the house and we were not of stable financial means, my daughters were not clothes horses; we could not afford it.

    I also felt the pressure to protect my daughters even more as I know that my daughters’ not having a man at home and our lower class status afforded many to take the notion that my daughters were fair game and and had less value as persons.
    More than once there were grown men who tried to horn in on my daughter’s lives or ‘make friends’ with me to gain access. And the pressure from other women that I conform and find a man, any man, willing to support us was sickening as well — ostracization was the result because I refused to trust a man in my household.

    The welfare deform act that pushes marriage onto poor single marriage as an ‘option’ out of poverty only further shows that women who wish to deny the patriarchy its power to control women and children must be punished with impunity.

  35. Kate

    I wrote in the last paragraph, “onto poor single marriage”, I meant ‘poor single mothers’.

    I am sorry, but it seems repeatedly my ability to proof read conflicts with my eagerness to post and my mind going into a froth makes finding my small mistakes somehow more difficult. I apologize to those who struggle through my poor editing.

  36. hedonistic

    Twisty – - just a technical observation – - – I believe you can upload your photos without labeling them at all, so they won’t come up on a google search. I do it in wordpress all the time.

    Before I saw the light and realized what I was doing, I enrolled myself and my daughter in modeling/finishing school as a mother-daughter “bonding” experience. I wanted her to feel good about being extraordinarily tall with extraordinarily large feet (her father is 6’5″), and I thought being around other very tall girls would be good for her self-esteem. I also enrolled with her because I didn’t want her to leave my sight.

    Unfortunately, the experience only indoctrinated her. Now she’s a little circus-performer for the Male Gaze, her nose planted firmly in every fashion magazine she can get her hands on. So did the experience increase her self esteem or totally destroy it? I’m only glad she was never called for a job.

    I blame myself.

    And I can’t click on that link. I just can’t. GAH.

  37. Mar Iguana

    American courts have held that the US Constitution should treat pornography as protected speech, even if it does all the harm that Catherine MacKinnon argues it does. “They’ve said the more harm, the more protection. Because that just shows you how effective the pornography is as speech. Brilliant! Right?” …MacKinnon

    Riiight. Porn is hate speech, period, and should be banned as such. No, it won’t make it go away but at least it wouldn’t be sanctioned.

  38. teffie-phd

    I know a family who have their children model for money. It’s the grossest thing I’ve ever witnessed. They’re middle class white folks where the mom stays at home and her “job” is to shuttle her kids to modelling gigs so they can be in Wal-Mart flyers and the Sears catalogue. The kids have been in this business since they were babies and have appeared on toy packages and in all kinds of other commercial crap.

    The parents say the money is for university, and it may well be, but I always wonder how the kids feel about working a few hours a week at 3 instead of running around and playing. The mother also keeps a copy of everything they appear in and even buys the kids the toys they are on the package of, and an extra to put away for when they’re famous or for a keepsake.

    It is totally creepy. And now I have the horror of knowing where their pictures will end up when they’re 10.

    And this is also why my 7 year old daughter is not getting a fucking two piece bathing suit. Fucking patriarchy.

  39. finnsmotel

    A good place to start might be convincing your relatives NOT to have Princess Parties for their daughters’ birthday…

    http://familyfun.go.com/parties/birthday/feature/famf1001_princessbday/

    Porn gets our ire, maybe because it’s so grotesque and ire-evoking. But really, porn is just a few ticks away from the reality that’s right under our noses.

    My sister-in-law had one of these parties for her daughter and I was paralyzed as to what to do when my wife went along with and took our daughter.

    The Patriarchy is a mysterious devil.

  40. Delphyne

    “What really makes me sick (and the merely blurred pictures I’m not clicking, strong stomached for many thigns but legal pedo crap) is that the main reason shit like this exists is because hte parents are making a killing from it.”

    The main reason that this stuff exists is that there is a demand for it.

    Men want to see pictures of sexualised little girls. It’s what turns some of them (many of them? who knows?) on.

    It’s fine blaming the parents but it’s the sick fucks who are willing to pay money to see little girls used like this who are making it happen.

  41. Delphyne

    How on earth do you see a Princess Party as pornographic Finssmotel?

  42. Ron Sullivan

    OK, all that plus the weirdness of putting bikini tops on little kids with no tits, just to convince them or somebody that the bits they have that are identical with the bits their brothers have must nevertheless be both covered up and fetishized because someday they’re going to look like what the patriarchy insists must be both covered up and fetishized, because after all we wouldn’t want them to forget for even one minute who owns those bits and the inconvenient person they’re attached to. And it ain’t the kid who has to keep yanking that top down when it slides up from those pathetically fearsome dots on her chest every time she reaches or swims or you-know just plays like a kid because the original top was all about (still inconveniently, to the wearer) holding up something that isn’t there.

    And how the lifelong infantilization of women and the sexualization — meaning fetishization, not meaning allowing them to acknowledge that they’re human beings with bits that feel really really good when stimulated in a friendly fashion — of little girls are faces of the same debased coin.

    OK, now do I get the Run-On Sentence Fragment trophy for the day? Two out of three, at this length, hey.

  43. finnsmotel

    >How on earth do you see a Princess Party as pornographic Finssmotel?

  44. finnsmotel

    whoops… try again…

    “How on earth do you see a Princess Party as pornographic Finssmotel?”

    I didn’t say it was pornographic. I said it was just a few ticks up the spectrum.

    Princess Parties are a cultural reinforcement of patriarchy via fetishized feminine imagery.

  45. alphabitch

    Yay Finn! I was constantly humiliated and tormented by evil parents who would not let me have a Barbie doll or be a princess for Halloween. Or ballet lessons. All I really wanted was the sparkly damn tiara, and it was quite a few years before I understood what my dear crazy mother was going on about when she got started on the commodification of femininity and the objectification of women and yada yada yada. She did, however, get me a two-piece bathing suit, but it was the early 70s. The bottoms covered my belly button.

    Princess parties, ye gods. Don’t tell my mother there is such a thing or she’ll never shut up.

    PS: She finally gave me a tiara for my 40th birthday; she said I was old enough. It’s very sparkly.

  46. Arianna

    What I find interesting is that no one has commented on the msnbc article that Twisty linked. It states that one of the “child models’” mothers is an ex-porn star.

    Interesting.

  47. Annie

    Arianna,

    When I tried to follow the MSNBC link a message popped up saying that it was an expired link.

  48. Arianna

    Weird. Worked for me. Damn you internets!

  49. saltyC

    Kate….

    Absolutely true!

    Pedopohiles look for single moms to “hook up” with. promoting marriage as a solution to welfare is promoting child rape.

  50. Kate

    Arianna, curious i followed the link and here’s what I see from the ‘report’

    first off, what do you call this kind of redundancy in the Halls of Higher English Learning? Twisty? R. Sullivan? or others of you who had the fortune of years of study of language, I am curious. Read:

    “Many — if not most — customers are sexually interested in children, and some are pedophiles.”

    Besides just another example of how so many jourmalists don’t seem to be too smart, what’s this redundancy called? Curious I am.

    Also, what I found lacking in that article was focus on what this practice does to young girls, they quoted some remarks, but ended with near-editorializaing on the topic as a free speech issue. So much for being a child protection issue, since those complicit patriarchy practitioners and panderers can see no negative effects for the children.

    I hope they make a law…

    whoever ‘they’ is, I’ve been waiting for them for awhile to come in and save the day.

  51. Kate

    “And this is also why my 7 year old daughter is not getting a fucking two piece bathing suit.”

    Absolutely, my daughters never had one until they starting buying their own clothes in their late teens.

    They constantly beraded me for being prudish, now they see it differently.

  52. Arianna

    Well, I’m only in my first year as an English major (despite the fact that I’m 21), but I believe it’s just “redundancy”, though I’d like to call it “dumbfuckery”, or particularly the overtly Patriarichal form there of. Seperating those who are “sexually interested in children” and only labeling those who have actually preyed on children “pedophiles”, destroys any sense of cause and effect. Same thing as seperating watching porn and rape.

  53. pmacdonell

    I’m the mother of a 10 year old daughter and I can’t look at these innocent and endangered little girls without connecting to my feelings for her.

    Parents who allow their daughters to be photographed for a site like this may lack that normal human instinct to protect their children. I think that any parent who would let this happen is damaged in some way.

    For me it would be unthinkable.

  54. alphabitch

    Well, you’ve got a tautology there for starters (an undesirable use of redundant language; more simply: repeating the same thing twice in slightly different language). And a truism (a statement that is so obvious it’s not worth making).

    I’m sort of concerned, though, about a couple of implications of that sentence: are there adults who are sexually interested in children who are somehow not pedophiles? Or does the writer perhaps mean “Many — if not most — customers are sexually interested in children, and some are convicted child molesters? “Pedophile” is not a legal term, nor even a crime; it simply denotes a sexual interest in children. [Hence the tautology.]

  55. Annie

    Kate, in a different thread a while back I posted the title of a journal article about “survivor discourse” and in it there was a bit about how the media (particularly TV confessionals like Maury etc) serve to ultimately depresentify women who have survived sexual violence. Though I wasn’t able to open the link, I have that niggling feeling that the inaneness you found in the report operates similarly. This sort of “reporting” tends to smack wildly of the patriarchy–often subordinating the speech of victims, especially women, and saying something gross like: “So, now Susie’s father comes along to all of her modeling shoots to make certain that things are done professionally and his daughter is respected” or some such crap like that there.

  56. alphabitch

    Oops – I was too quick with that ‘blame’ button. The explanation of tautology should be amended to read “an undesirable use or redundant language that fails to add to the meaning of the sentence etc.”

    Also, I read the MSNBC article and it didn’t help me understand what the writer meant by that particular sentence. The next sentence mentioned something about law enforcement officials, so I’m guessing that the interpretation above is what was meant. Or something like that.

    It’s all just so icky. If youall will excuse me, I’m going to go hack the rest of the honeysuckle vines from my azaleas, and see if I can’t get rid of the poison ivy that is now tying itself in knots around my porch railing.

  57. BCollie49

    I found this site several years ago after being completely disgusted by the exploitation of female children by both the media and clothing manufacturers. Here is the link to the picture that shocked me and still does. The home link is right below it.

    http://www.about-face.org/goo/archive/categories/younggirls/younggirls2.shtml

    http://www.about-face.org/

    From the website:

    About-Face promotes positive self-esteem in girls and women of all ages, sizes, races and backgrounds through a spirited approach to media education, outreach and activism.

    To encourage a healthy skepticism about media images and the messages of popular culture
    To empower young people to feel confident about their individuality, their abilities and their bodies
    To encourage individuals to identify and give voice to their opinions
    To educate parents to empower their daughters and enlighten their sons
    To identify companies that show women in unrealistic, distorted or vulnerable poses and hold them responsible for their negative imagery
    To endorse companies that promote diverse and healthy images
    To educate on subjects of sexism, lookism and the obsession with weight in our culture
    To create alternative images through posters and art installations
    To educate through lectures and special programs in schools
    To use playful and original ideas to generate cultural change
    To promote appreciation of diversity and gender equality in schools
    To provide a forum for discourse and serve as a resource to researchers, educators and policy makers as well as popular media and cultural trendsetters.

    I agree, Twisty – young girls on this Planet have less power than other humans. And I blame the patriarchy for that, along with so many other things.

  58. mycrust

    my view is that if women’s orifices were not universally seen as the property of male prurience, porn would cease to exist and sex would just be sex.

    This is tangential to the main point of the post, but I want to problematize this a little bit. What do you mean by “sex would just be sex”? How do you see sex once it’s liberated from the patriarchal trappings of desire and consumption? Does sex that’s just sex mean sex that’s only about reproduction?

  59. joolya

    There’s no way (I clicked, ick) that this is not porn. Soft-core porn, sure, but porn nonetheless. A female, sprawled on a bed, ruching her shirt up, with one hand on her chest and her mouth open and her hair flipped over like she was about to suck some cock . . . How is that not porn??? Just because you can’t see her nipples? Ew, ew, ew.

    From the MSN article:
    “Our site is filled with so many wonderful things that any kid would be happy to see and browse through,” said the respondent, who signed her e-mail as “Mommy.” “Why are you stuck on the few photos we have of her in her custom-made clothing? Have you seen the great updates where she shows you how to make an excellent salmon dish using only tinfoil to bake it with? What about the very fun and informative software reviews that took her months to put together? Any [of] her Yoga video/pics!??”

    So, I clicked on Jessi-the-[poor]-Kid’s link. There were definitely no salmon recipes in obvious sight. I guess you have to pay for that? But for free you can see Jessi in the shower, dressed as a cheerleader, in various bikinis putting various things in her mouth, dressed like a biker chick kneeling down and pulling on a bedsheet, sticking her butt out in various short skirts, in her pajamas (!) . . .

    The anonymous “Mommy” should be put in jail, and the other inmates should know why she (or he) is in there. That is totally abuse. Her sexual identity is being defined and pimped out by her parents, for the male gaze to jerk off to. And where there is smoke, ie hypersexualized children, there is often fire, ie adult abusers. If this child has not been sexually abused in a physical way, she most certainly is being sexually abused mentally and emotionally.

    Couldn’t this be violating some kind of child labor/exploitation laws???

  60. Shy Girl

    Hi all. Long time fan, first time posting.
    While searching articles about the impact of pre-teen modelling sites I found the following on a site that supports pedophilia, and aims to give it ‘a human side’ (as though such a thing were possible). I think I may be violently ill.

    From the mouths of pervs:
    “I think that preteen modelling [sic] sites are a good thing so long as the girls involved are doing so of their own free will, are being properly compensated and are not being exploited in any other way [‘any other way’; is this an admission that children being photographed in a highly sexualized way is exploitation in and of itself?]. I can think of many such sites where this appears to be the case [‘appears to be the case’ another intentional word choice] and I am fully in support of these sites’ continued existence and prosperity.
    Not only am I totally certain that pedophiles very much enjoy viewing these pictures, I believe that these sites are being completely disingenuous if they say that pedophiles are not their primary target market.”

    Eww. I haven’t linked the site because, although I don’t believe it contains any images, I am so disgusted/disturbed by it. Aside from the last sentance, he sounds alarmingly like the parents and authorities who support the sites.

    How is it that admitted pedophiles can accurately voice how these sites work and appeal to them, while malestream media, authorities, and parents continue to pretend that pre-teen modeling is a grey area? A decent society would keep children out of grey areas. Looks like Patriarchy to me.

  61. thebewilderness

    Kate, I think it’s all about the difference between date rape and stranger rape. There is none. That would be the fine distinction the traditional media is always careful to make.

  62. thelmyc

    Twisty, SERIOUSLY — please get those fucking pics off the site. I’m stuck on lynx until they move down far enough that I don’t have to LOOK AT THEM. They’re fucking revolting, blurry or not.

  63. Sara

    Ew.

    Ew. Ew. Ew.

    And then I heard this on the radio:

    http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/04/19/PM200604193.html

    I cannot go to this website you’ve linked to above. I cannot. So I don’t know if they accept Visa, MC or Amex. If they do, maybe somebody (per this article I’ve linked here) can mention to these companies that even though it’s technically legal, it’s really, really bad for their brand to allow this kind of usage, too.

    I don’t know whether I’m more horrified that anyone (let alone how very many) wants to look at child pornography — to any purported degree of greyness — or that anyone would encourage their child toward participation in any level of it. But then I don’t [want to] understand child beauty pageants with lipstick on four-year-olds (à la Jon Benet Ramsay), either. When outright third-party kidnapping and coercion are not involved, I really think the permission and encouragement aspects of these phenomena have an awful lot to do with the vanity of the parents. And that’s just so fucking creepy.

    I also find it ironic that I came across this post at your site the same day you posted about the baby delivered by Brooke Shields, who, as I recall, was herself a victim of this kind of thing at the hands of a not terribly scrupulous mom.

  64. curiousgirl

    >

    I cant speak for Twisty, just for me, of course. But I think sex that is just about reproduction is as opressive to women as sex that is just about male pleasure. i think in post-patriarchy sex would be about pleasure for everyone, and power erotics would not provide most of that pleasure as they do now. It is, atmittedly, difficult to imagine because it is far outside my possible experience. But still possible, I imagine.

  65. Christopher

    I’m still a little curious as to how you’d go about excising this filth, legally speaking.

    I mean, I hear people talking about banning porn, but what does that mean?

    It can’t just be sexual acts or nudity, because banning those would lead to getting rid of many non-porn works, and would fail to get the filth we’re talking about here.

    More subjective standards, such as “Prurient material that has no redeeming social value” leaves a big loophole too, as the proprietors of these sites can argue that they do have some redeeming social value.

    I mean, since we’re just bitching, it’s not really necessary to provide a solution, but I would really like to hear your guyses thoughts on this.

  66. curiousgirl

    I think the way to take this on, legally, might be to limit parents access to child entertainment workers’ earnings. Legally, all earnings should be put in trust, with no proceeds from child wokers going to fund their work. I think there would be a lot less of this, along with child acting, modeling, advertising etc. And I wouldn’t miss it.

  67. Kate

    Obscenity laws in and of themselves are constantly shot down and brought up again and shot down again. Latey, since the Clinton administrations blatent non-oversight of porn, it has proliferated. I think if not for the public’s activism involving child porn, the internet would still be the kiddie porn haven it was in the early nineties where such could be found everywhere and anywhere on any browser search with simple key words.

    Now that enforcement of child porn has carried a little further, such creepy sites as this one exist to give pedos a chance to not only view porn, but I think more importantly, a place where they can hook up with eachother and trade even more graphic and vulgar pics.

    I frankly wouldn’t care if modeling of children outside of regular advertisements for say, children’s clothing in Sears, where children are fully clothed and their poses non sexual should be the only allowable ‘modeling’ for children, period.

    If our society really made the mental well being of females a priority then kiddie beauty pagents, kiddie modeling sites and other activities deemed to be potentially damaging to a child’s health would be banned, period.

    A sure sign of the patriarchy that the public can handle having their phones tapped by the government, screams about sugar coated cereal ads on cartoon shows or the violence therein, but have nothing to say about damage done by sexualizaing young girls on the internet or in kiddie beauty pagents.

    Hedon: Hopefully your daughter is young enough that if you bombard her constantly with counter-patriarchy ideas and images, she will absorb some of it and get it later on. I am glad always to hear of another woman who gets it, even if it means coming as of late. None of us are perfect, we can only strive to get better.

  68. ae

    Gray area, hunh? That’s about as “gray” as this administration’s assertion that abuse short of organ failure is not torture. Absolutely heinous. And I cannot even think the word ‘parents’ as connected to this unless I use finger quotes. Because FUCK THEM. They’re exploiters. Nothing less.

    Who knew 9-yr-old girls all expressed their personalities by gyrating into porn poses? What a fucking coincidence! Truly a statistical wonder that.

    scratchy888, Merkins are strange. So are Murkans.

  69. Annie

    Why should I be the only one going to bed with a bottle of Pepto-Bismal?

    http://www.instyleswimwear.com/kids_junior.asp

    For the record, this is the first link that came up in Yahoo using a perfectly clean set of search terms: girls swimwear. I have emailed this company expressing my DISGUST. They won’t care, but at least I know I said something to THEM, and not just to you all. Jeex! What a world!

  70. Christopher

    “here children are fully clothed and their poses non sexual should be the only allowable ‘modeling’ for children, period.”

    One thing I’m trying to get at is whether you can make terms like “fully clothed” less subjective. I mean, how much skin can be shown before a girl is no longer considered “fully clothed”?

    The very subjectivity of the term is why the stuff we’re talking about can flourish; Because the poor children involved have their naughty bits covered, they’re considered “fully clothed”.

    The idea of restricting modeling proceeds makes sense to me.

    I’m sort of wondering wether modeling shouldn’t just be completely banned for people under a certain age.

  71. CarolS

    My kids are pretty young — the oldest is only 8 — and I already have smacked my forehead a zillion times at how frickin’ braindead the parents of some of his cohorts are. For example, the girl who comes to the preschool Halloween party dressed as “l’il rock star”: the tight-fitting, cropped sleeveless T-shirt she wore had this spelled out in rhinestones. You can imagine the rest of the outfit, tight low-rider jeans n’all. Just trying to find my 4 yr old daughter shorts for summertime that don’t look like they were taken from Daisy Duke’s wardrobe can be a trial. I still have nightmarish visions of JonBenet Ramsey and her ilk, strutting down the runway with big hair, pouty lipstick-covered lips, and a seductive shake of the hips. At age 6. WTF is wrong with these people?!

    I’m gonna go upchuck now.

  72. Charles

    Sara, I heard the same story on Marketplace on my way home, and like you it was after I read this story. Unlike you, I did click the link. “Ew” doesn’t capture it, I’m sorry to say. Someone above quoted a pedophile saying something to the effect of, “let’s all admit this is child porn.” Yep, it is. The Marketplace story says that AMEX, Visa, etc. are joined in a campaign to eliminate child porn on the internets by 2008 by preventing people from using credit cards on those sites. I have no way to judge the quality of their efforts; my assumption is that not nearly enough resources are being put into this effort. As the adoptive father of an 11-month old girl . . . words fail me.

  73. finnsmotel

    Kate sez:

    “If our society really made the mental well being of females a priority then kiddie beauty pagents, kiddie modeling sites and other activities deemed to be potentially damaging to a child’s health would be banned, period.”

    Not to pick on you, Kate, because I believe we agree in principle, but… I don’t think ‘making the mental well-being of females a priority’ is going to be enough to accomplish what you suggest.

    There needs to be a wholesale reevaluation of the MALE role in society. Patriarchy is what makes porn possible. Sympathy for the victims is well and good and should happen, sure, but without a reconstruction of the male role in society, all we’re doing is putting a band-aid on a cut that will reopen time and again.

    Now, I have no idea what post-patriarchal sex would be like, but I bet it would include far less of the anxiety and obsessive behavior it does now.

  74. Ms Kate

    Charles, try the boys section of a somewhat gender neutral place for girl’s clothes that aren’t lolita lite. The fit at age 4 should be about the same.

    Better yet, consignment shops contain little of this sort of trashy crap for girls because 1)it isn’t fashionable for more than a year and 2) it is such cheap crap and poor quality, it doesn’t make it to the shop in saleable condition. Plenty of cute, girly, modest stuff makes it through the sieve. What you end up finding is LL Bean, Gap Kids, Gymboree, and Hannah Anderson sorts of clothes, nicely broken in and at a fraction of the original price.

  75. Ms Kate

    I’m sorry Charles, that was directed at CarolS.

  76. Lara

    These pedofetishporn sites aren’t even limited to young teen and preteen victims. Last year, during a storm about diaper fetishists compiling paid-for wank-galleries of infant photos scraped from family photo sites, it came to light that a number of children aged 5-15 were being forced by their parents to pose for nappyporn, including fulfilling online orders for particularly “sought-after” children to be posed in particular ways. The fetishists stridently maintained that their interest wasn’t sexual, they just lurrrrrved children. Especially children wetting their pants and then showing the money shot.

    If you ever happen across Brian Cobb of Michigan, do please whack him repeatedly in his soft parts with a spiked club, and tell him it’s from me. Ta.

  77. badgerbag

    That’s so horrifying and messed up and crazy. Oh man. I wish, I wish, that I didn’t have my own memories of “dressing up like hookers” with my friends when I was little.

    Thanks for pointing this out and I think the link was necessary.

  78. sushi

    Can someone please explain to me exactly what’s wrong with ballet and dance lessons? And I apologize if this has been discussed before in advance.

    One of the least sexualized things I’ve done with my life is take (and teach) dance classes. Maybe it’s just that I live in a small town in the Midwest, but jazz and modern classes here, at every studio I’ve ever been to, have everything to do with somewhat dorky dance steps from the 1940s mixed in with a little bit of “hammer-time.” Girls and boys alike are dressed in full length tops and sparkly pants certainly aren’t tight.

    When I have been to some skanky clubs with friends I can’t begin to do the things with my hips that those girls do. It’s simple: I’ve been taught not to. I’ve been taught to have utter control of that part of my body, and I’ve been told that hooching it up is ugly. Why is this a bad thing to teach our daughters?

    Now, I realize that one might have issue with wearing leotards and tights, but my current studio doesn’t require them. When I taught a few years ago I didn’t either. People could wear workout clothes, or ballet clothes, or whatever the heck they were comfortable in.

    If you are at a studio or company where it’s clear a girl must be anorexic to get parts, it’s just as easy to leave and find one where that isn’t the case. It’s sad that some girl’s parents force them into such a situation at more serious ballet studios, but it’s not completely the same thing as forcing ones daughter into modeling. There are studios where skinny or fat if you can do the work you get to show off in the once yearly recital–period. It’s ultimately usually up to the parent what sort of place their daughter or son lands at.

    Is it the girly and floofy costumes? They aren’t a necessity. Heck, performing isn’t a necessity.

    For young girls and boys, dance provides an alternative to sports that teaches flexibility and coordination, and helps people develop a decent work out regimen. That’s really about all it is, at least, where I’ve landed myself.

    For me, a 25 year old PhD candidate, my Monday night classes are all about meeting with a group of women my age and older, cracking out some champagne, talking about what bothers us (sometimes even the patriarchy!) and our accomplishments too, and yes, working out. We do ballet, tap, jazz, and spanish, and none of this is really sexy in a conventional sense.

    So what gives? How is doing this giving in to the patriarchy?

  79. vasco da gama

    Hey girls, it’s too late. You have already declared that prostitution is the ‘sex trade’ thereby euphemizing into respectability. This is not a sexploitation issue. This is labor issue. Or has your fucking nonsense finally hit the brick wall of reality?

    Chuckle

  1. Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Good Things to Read

    [...] “He Touched My Special Gray Area” at I Blame The Patriarchy “Inside Higher Ed on the Gender Pay Gap” at Alas, a Blog [...]

  2. Sugared Harpy » Oh my god

    [...] Just go read this post by our favorite patriarchy blaming Auntie. [...]

  3. sonitus.org » Blog Archive » He Touched My Special Gray Area

    [...] I Blame the Patriarchy [...]

  4. You need Other Magazine

    [...] Twisty Faster of “I Blame the Patriarchy” has an excellent, ranty, fired-up post about a hideous industry of preteen and teenage “supermodels”. I warn you, the photos on that site will make you feel kind of sick. They’re of young girls in skimpy clothes and porno poses. So the site is completely legal, and subscribing to it (30 bucks a month) is too. And yet the obvious purpose of the site is to be porn, i.e. it’s for people (guys) to look at while they jack off. [...]

  5. I’ve not mocked Jeffy-poo enough it seems at PunkAssBlog.com

    [...] We’re not talking actual touching their grey area stuff are we? Just for once can someone on the right not live up to the name Pedoservative? Could we please just have one generation of cosnervatives who are not largely a bunch of pedophiles, rapists and miscelaneous lesser sex offenders? Why is that such a hard ting to ask for? [...]

Comments have been disabled.