It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mother dresses girl aged THREE as prostitute in Toddlers and Tiaras pageant

page: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
These people are sick!
The viewers of THESE SHOWS watching'
5 year olds strut up and down a stage are really
interested in their ‘interests’ in swimming or dancing SURE.
It makes me feel physically sick, this sexualizing
of such small girls should be illegal for any parent
stupid enough to enter their child in such one deserves to be locked up.
In this day and age when children are more and more obsessed
with body image than being a child and having fun such
competitions just fuel this obsession and it has to stop.
WHO the hell judges this crap?!?!? Some freakin weirdos!




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sevensight

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I think a lot of people are missing the bigger point to this.

While the outfit of the girl in the pictures may be shocking to some, it's the whole concept of beauty pageants for young children which are sick and exploitative.



You need to hurry up and explain to the OP of this thread that they got their topic all wrong and wrote their opening post completely wrong. Why did you not tell them you were changing the topic for them on the first page?


You know something tells me that you are someone else that was busy in this thread back with a new name.
Clearly obvious, banned the first time - create a new identity.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hr2burn
I HOPE she was making a point about these child beauty pageants that is really what I see on these things anyway. It should be showing off the kids innocence and cuteness.....not the screwed up nightmare it has become. Again, hope she was showing how F'd up it all is!


Yes, and a prostitute is neither innocent or cute. Prostitution is a terrible image because many prostitutes have been forced into it since they were young. Not all of them, but there are many who have been. I don't care if she was supposed to be dressed like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, life is not really glamorous like that for prostitutes. Hey wait, let's dress the little girl up like Julia Roberts did before she met Richard Gere in that movie.

No wait, that wasn't glamorous at all.

Little girls should dress like little girls. They should not be paraded around dressed like little women, because they are not little women. They are not little dress up dolls for their mothers and fathers to play some vicarious dream with, they are children. There is no preservation of children's innocence and purity when it comes to things like this. Perhaps the mother should have taken her little girl to Disney World and let her see that princesses are something she can grow up to be because princesses are loved and respected by their Prince Charmings. What is childhood innocence anymore? Apparently nothing when it comes to movies that glamorize the untruths of what really happens to prostitutes.

Sexual exploitation is called that for a reason, because it is destructive. Anything that resembles sexual exploitation should be banned because now this little girl who did nothing wrong will live the rest of her life thinking that sexuality is a show to win a trophy or a tiara. She is a little girl, not an adult. Let her grow up before making the decisions about sexuality for her life.

I was agreeing with you by the way, the rest was my rant.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


this was on the news here. It truly is disgusting. On the news report they had here they were refering to 'pretty woman' and how this little girl was dressed and how the parents wanted her to look like Julia Roberts.. This show is sick and any time I see a commercial or even hear about it I think of jonbenet ramsey.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
AlterNet are running a story including this show:


10 Revolting TV Shows That Need to Die

Television influences our culture and mental health. Here are shows that we need to kill like a virus.

1. Toddlers and Tiaras

TLC’s look into the backstage world of child pageants—where parents doll up and sexualize their very young daughters (JonBenet Ramsey, RIP) -- was initially quite fascinating when it launched in 2009. Seeing the different ways these stage parents train their children to adhere to complex, grown-up, consumer-defined beauty standards was hard to watch, but useful in a sociological way.

But as the show has grown—and many of these stories have been told—it’s felt doubly exploitative, compounding the parents’ exposure of their children to experiences they can’t yet begin to understand with a freakshow eye on the pageants. Plus, it’s hard not to feel complicit in child exploitation when you’re watching a one-year-old crying because her hairpiece hurts.

The worst part? “Toddlers and Tiaras” has spawned a host of knockoffs, including “Dance Moms,” in which a dance teacher yells at competitive eight- and nine-year-olds like they’re Marines, and “Little Miss Perfect,” which encourages consumer culture in five-year-olds. There’s no way the normalization of this subculture of gussying up tiny children and pitting them against each other can be good for anyone.
Alternet

The spin off from this show, illustrates that even against the strong feelings most on here have shown against this show, there must be a huge watcher base for these spin offs to.

Maybe the next one will be

Tots & Tarts


Wouldn't surprise me even though I am being sarcarstic.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Sick mothers .. they do this for themself for greedness purpose .. MONEY

little girl should play with barbies and dolls .. not becoming one



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Any exploitation of children should result the authorities mandatorily removing the child from the ''parents''.

As beauty pageants for young children are all done for the parents' personal gain, while completely ignoring the potential harm it may cause their child, then all of these ''parents'' should have their children removed from their custody.

Those who think that parents have a ''right'' to use their children as property, and to make personal and financial gain off the back of entering them in beauty pageants, are, thankfully, a dying breed of dinosaurs who are living in a 200 year-old time-warp.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
This is all about the mother. Why, oh why do they think this is even cute? It is beyond me. Dressing a child up as a hooker and parading her around a stage is completely tasteless.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


That is a lose/lose situation. Taking a child away from her mother is not an easy task..sometimes it has to be done. This could hopefully be fixed with some parenting classes and a little supervision. Placing a child in faster care is something to think twice about. Especially these little girls and how abusers are. There are good homes out there, you just never know.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Any exploitation of children should result the authorities mandatorily removing the child from the ''parents''.


...how very elitist of you... whats your plan for the removed kids and why should taxpayers have to finance your desire to control / destroy other people's lives?...


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
As beauty pageants for young children are all done for the parents' personal gain, while completely ignoring the potential harm it may cause their child, then all of these ''parents'' should have their children removed from their custody.


...you dont know those people or their intent...

...as for potential harm - everything we do carries that risk...


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Those who think that parents have a ''right'' to use their children as property, and to make personal and financial gain off the back of entering them in beauty pageants, are, thankfully, a dying breed of dinosaurs who are living in a 200 year-old time-warp.


...here in the usofa, there are laws that curtail how many hours per day a child can work "in an industry" and in what kind of environment... there is no wide-sweeping elitist law against profitting off of your own child...

...entertainment industries (carnivals, circuses, movies, music, radio, rodeo, sports, tv) have been profitting off of children for many decades... has it been all good?... no... as it been all bad?... no...

...common folks have been hiring their kids out to farmers or the upper class for eons upon eons and sometimes that makes the difference between a family eating two meals a day and eating two meals a week...



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I'd be all for it and supporting the mother if she dressed her daughter like that in an ironic way as a message but since she's probably as dense as 3 feet of asphalt, I'd say yeah......I've seen that show and it's wrong on all kinds of levels.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lovelyful
That is a lose/lose situation.


It can't really be helped. The only other realistic solution to help prevent children from being raised by exploitative and abusive parents, would be a forced sterilisation programme and the granting of ''breeding licenses''.

I don't really think that that's the way to go.



Originally posted by Lovelyful
Taking a child away from her mother is not an easy task..sometimes it has to be done.


Which is why the process needs to be made easier, and implemented more extensively and frequently. It's important to remove children from a harmful environment as early as possible, due to how much irreparable damage can be caused by negative influences in a child's formative years.


Originally posted by Lovelyful
This could hopefully be fixed with some parenting classes and a little supervision.


If ''parents'' think that it's acceptable to exploit their 3-year-old daughter by parading her on national television for monetary or personal gain, then I doubt that a hundred parenting classes would be able to cure the festering problem at the root of the parents' actions.


Originally posted by Lovelyful
Placing a child in faster care is something to think twice about. Especially these little girls and how abusers are. There are good homes out there, you just never know.


Yes, it does raise a problem if they were to be put in care homes, and all the negative connotations that that upbringing could have on the child's decelopment . But, the whole foster care home system is in need of a radical overhaul, anyway.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


The Jackie Coogan Law of California dictates how much money a parent is allowed to profit from child actors. Jackie Coogan's parents blew his money on alcohol and a lavish lifestyle they denied the child from having. And he is not the only child actor to have this happen. Shirley Temple also lost the money she earned because her parents mishandled her money.

As a filmmaker, I understand the need for children to be in movies and televison, especially in children's shows. But as a responsible filmmaker, I also understand that children are not cattle to be profited from and never should they be exploited. If a child acts and is paid, that means that child worked for what he earned. His parents should only get compensated for representation as legal guardian. When you dress a child in this manner to accentuate or present a sexuality that is not there, then it is exploitive. I have filmed things with children and their parents were there when the filming occured and we filmed at such a time that it was not disruptive of his school schedule. But before we even filmed, I presented the parents with a script to let them understand what the film was about. The parents had every right to step in and say if enough was enough or if it was inappropriate.

I refuse to film inappropriate things with children. They are children and not robots. They are children and not little adults. I want them to grow up saying they had this fun adventure of being able to act in something. But we need to allow them to grow up so they can decide what they want to do with their future.

People are now talking about Miley Cyrus grown up and acting out. She was an exploited child. She was presented as a sexual being the same as Britney Spears was and Lindsay Lohan. Now they do not have a full grasp of what it means to be a healthy adult. And every man who bought their albums and videos should be ashamed, but we turn our heads because it seems innocent. I do not believe for a minute that children had enough money to spend on these girls but the adults did and yes, many perverse pedophiles bought their merchandise while their mothers and fathers kept pushing them out there to make another dollar. That is exploitation. These girls are not healthy adults and I blame their parents first.

As a adult, and a film watcher, I take careful consideration as to what I watch. If it looks or smells exploitive, I will not watch it. Now we can blame Hollywood all we want, but the simple rule of business is this...if there are no customers, then there is no demand. We can blame Hollywood all we want, but why don't we stop the single man in Wal-Mart and ask him why he is buying Miley Cyrus? He is buying what he perceives is sex, and he believes it is ok. Is he buying it for his child? We don't know, but the truth is the ones who have the economic means to buy this are adults. So yes, to put a child out there for a buck or ratings...is exploitation.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 

The Jackie Coogan Law of California dictates how much money a parent is allowed to profit from child actors.


...iow - exploiting your own child is legal (in the land of fruits and nuts)...


Originally posted by WarminIndy
And he is not the only child actor to have this happen. Shirley Temple also lost the money she earned because her parents mishandled her money.


...everyone in the biz exploits and profits from kids in the biz - moguls, directors, producers, agents, photographers - not just the parents...


Originally posted by WarminIndy
As a filmmaker, I understand the need for children to be in movies and televison, especially in children's shows. But as a responsible filmmaker, I also understand that children are not cattle to be profited from and never should they be exploited. If a child acts and is paid, that means that child worked for what he earned.


...you're justifying your own version of child exploitation...


Originally posted by WarminIndy
His parents should only get compensated for representation as legal guardian.


...i dont think thats any of your biz...


Originally posted by WarminIndy
When you dress a child in this manner to accentuate or present a sexuality that is not there, then it is exploitive.


...thats what you saw... the salaciousness is in your mind... unless you personally know that mother and have heard her view, you dont know what her intent was...

...the rest of your post is hilariously hypocritical - blaming everyone but yourself, a person who also makes money off of exploiting children...



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 




...iow - exploiting your own child is legal (in the land of fruits and nuts)...


Actually, no. People get around it by renaming it entertainment.





...everyone in the biz exploits and profits from kids in the biz - moguls, directors, producers, agents, photographers - not just the parents...



Yes, that is true. But parents that are good parents don't allow that to happen. There are good parents who do indeed watch out for their children. Child actors are paid according to the contracts their parents sign. If the parent does not like the contract, they should not sign it.



...you're justifying your own version of child exploitation...


Child actors and exploitation of children are different. What is the difference in Gary Coleman and Haley Joel Osment? Parental supervision. What is the difference in Jenna Malone and Dana Plato? Parental supervision.




...i dont think thats any of your biz...



It's the law. So it is my business.



...thats what you saw... the salaciousness is in your mind... unless you personally know that mother and have heard her view, you dont know what her intent was...

...the rest of your post is hilariously hypocritical - blaming everyone but yourself, a person who also makes money off of exploiting children...



I think her actions speak well for what her view is.

Now let me ask you this, do you enjoy watching little girls paraded around looking like little women? Do you approve of little girls dressed like prostitutes to be paraded in front of men who think like you do? I guess in your world it must be ok for little girls to be treated like this.

I suppose in your view of the world, the drug dealer forces people to smoke marijuana too. I suppose the beer company forces people to get drunk. I suppose it is the fault of everyone else except the consumer.
To consume and then blame others for the consumption, is the true hypocrisy.

You are the consumer. Please consume responsibly.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I am all for removing children from abusive homes, but removing a child because her mother entered her in a beauty pageant is totaly absurd. Removing a child should be used as a last resort, because break up of a family is in itself a serious abuse.

Now those breeding licences I would agree with wholeheartedly.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


this is distubing! god knows how the mother could do this



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


So, you are saying that children should be removed more frequently? When the children are removed where should they be placed? The foster care system is already overloaded. What is your solution to this problem? I don't approve of this at all, yes the mother needs help, yes she needs a reality check, and if the child could, it would be best to stay with a loving relative for awhile and let the mother get help. Now television, that's another story. It should not have been shown to anybody...period.
edit on 11-9-2011 by Lovelyful because: added comment.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lovelyful
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


So, you are saying that children should be removed more frequently? When the children are removed where should they be placed? The foster care system is already overloaded. What is your solution to this problem? I don't approve of this at all, yes the mother needs help, yes she needs a reality check, and if the child could, it would be best to stay with a loving relative for awhile and let the mother get help. Now television, that's another story. It should not have been shown to anybody...period.
edit on 11-9-2011 by Lovelyful because: added comment.


I would not agree with removing children from their parents that are otherwise good. This action of this mother certainly would call for some type of family therapy.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
The mother should be jailed and charged with child endangerment. people go to jail over much lesser charges than this garbage. anyone watching this show should be ashamed of themselves.


The mother should be jailed by the Fasion Police. The outfit isn't skimpy, not showing a lot of skin. It's just sooooo bad! Tacky at best.

Check out these 7 year olds. This how to exploit littles girls, done right!
youtu.be...

edit on 11-9-2011 by windword because: embed




top topics



 
34
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join