The children in the ads, Kaybee. Reduced to props to fulfill somebody's idea of a "wEiRd" and "EdGY" fashion shoot, apparently.
There is a long history of exploitation of children in the modelling and entertainment industries and this illustrates that not enough has changed.
"What people are mad about are hypothetical children that, what, may get molested someday because some child abuser sees these images as like, 'cool! It's normalized now"'
Kaybee, Jaybee, I say this with love: Could you please get an actual exert on child safeguarding on to speak about this before the next time you do an episode about child abuse or "grooming"?
Yes, please! I think K and J really don't know very much about safeguarding. That's fine - many people don't. They also don't have kids so it's a step removed further and by their discussions I guess that they thankfully seem to not have experienced sexual exploitation or grooming as kids themselves (obviously speculating here, very much hoping I'm right).
Please, please speak to someone who knows what they are talking about. This is not a moral panic. Yes, the right is quick to jump onto anything and call it grooming and sure, people went a bit nuts looking up dates and court case papers, etc. over this, but what happened in the ad and in general in our society with regards to kids is often really, really damaging.
Apart from using baby names, i totally agree that the child models are harmed in this.
They may not have known in the moment what that bondage stuff was that they posed with, but they probably do now, and even if they don’t, they will as soon as they can use the internet and they will realize that no matter if the intent was to shock and get publicity or bc the designer felt inspired to have them model with those items, they were sexualized for profit, their parents put them in the situation to participate in the campaign and be effected by the public reaction. And they will know that most people stood up for them and said, “this isn’t ok to do with a child” and that some people didn’t. There is no way that a child could consent to participating in this ad.
One technique for grooming IS desensitizing people to inappropriate sexualized images. This was not meant to be published in children’s media, but I don’t want the greater public to be desensitized to such images.
"We don't have a single actual victim here"
The children in the ads, Kaybee. Reduced to props to fulfill somebody's idea of a "wEiRd" and "EdGY" fashion shoot, apparently.
There is a long history of exploitation of children in the modelling and entertainment industries and this illustrates that not enough has changed.
"What people are mad about are hypothetical children that, what, may get molested someday because some child abuser sees these images as like, 'cool! It's normalized now"'
Kaybee, Jaybee, I say this with love: Could you please get an actual exert on child safeguarding on to speak about this before the next time you do an episode about child abuse or "grooming"?
Yes, please! I think K and J really don't know very much about safeguarding. That's fine - many people don't. They also don't have kids so it's a step removed further and by their discussions I guess that they thankfully seem to not have experienced sexual exploitation or grooming as kids themselves (obviously speculating here, very much hoping I'm right).
Please, please speak to someone who knows what they are talking about. This is not a moral panic. Yes, the right is quick to jump onto anything and call it grooming and sure, people went a bit nuts looking up dates and court case papers, etc. over this, but what happened in the ad and in general in our society with regards to kids is often really, really damaging.
Children are not small adults.
Apart from using baby names, i totally agree that the child models are harmed in this.
They may not have known in the moment what that bondage stuff was that they posed with, but they probably do now, and even if they don’t, they will as soon as they can use the internet and they will realize that no matter if the intent was to shock and get publicity or bc the designer felt inspired to have them model with those items, they were sexualized for profit, their parents put them in the situation to participate in the campaign and be effected by the public reaction. And they will know that most people stood up for them and said, “this isn’t ok to do with a child” and that some people didn’t. There is no way that a child could consent to participating in this ad.
One technique for grooming IS desensitizing people to inappropriate sexualized images. This was not meant to be published in children’s media, but I don’t want the greater public to be desensitized to such images.
You sound like a Karen.
Ok, Mr. Grumpypants.