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

Originally posted by thedoctorswife

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I'm a parent of 3 kids, for over 20 years. If you WON'T see what's wrong here my words are meaningless. I just hope you don't have kids.

He doesnt, he care'nt do, or he would.

He is a she and I am getting really tired of pointing out that Kitti is a really silly boys name.

Originally posted by Kitilani
I am still waiting for you to point out in those pictures where mom and her intentions are.

Right there:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

English, not just for making sense anymore.

reply to post by Kitilani

Originally posted by Screwed
We live in a sick F ing world with sick F ing people.

Reply posted by Kitilani

Many of whom are in this thread.
I see a little girl in a crappy wig and little outfit having a good time at a pagent doing nothing harmful or wrong.
Many of you see porn and sex.

That is pretty F ing sick if you ask me. Why are so many of you thinking about sex when you look at these kids all the time?

AND

Originally posted by balanc3
Softcore child porn is what the producers are getting away with.

Reply posted by Kitilani



Just one example of softcore child porn from that show would go a long way to bring hyperbole back to Earth. Have anything like that or just talking?

Forgive me if I was incorrect in my interpretation that you were insinuating that because people are seeing something wrong with this little girls outfit that you think they are the ones who have problems with child porn and sex.

You mean you know for a fact that did not happen? I mean, I never said it did but that is because I have no way of knowing. How do you have this inside information? Just last week my 4 year old niece said she wanted to look like Lady Gaga. Please tell me how you come by this information.

I don't think it's impossible, just highly unlikely.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. So are the girls parents. So when are you going to go take that child from them?

Um, can you show me where I said that, or implied it? Of course it's my opinion, which is why I posted it.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Kitilani
I am still waiting for you to point out in those pictures where mom and her intentions are.

Right there:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

English, not just for making sense anymore.

Do you know what a photograph is?
Do you know what the word "see" means?

I get that you perceive something about the parents from looking at those pictures but the reality is that in those pictures there are no images of mom and her intentions.

These are really easy words to understand. See and photograph are pretty basic.

Someone has "issues"....
Perhaps a bad childhood?
BTW, you can BET at least one parent is behind all of this, and I bet it isn't the dad.

Originally posted by seeker11
Forgive me if I was incorrect in my interpretation that you were insinuating that because people are seeing something wrong with this little girls outfit that you think they are the ones who have problems with child porn and sex.

No. Here is what you stated about me again.

And to imply that other people are pedophiles because they think this type of behaviour will attract predators is nonsense and obnoxious.

Never suggested any such thing. You like Intrepid need to just read what I did write and it will be a lot easier to understand. Assuming what you think I meant and arguing about that is helping you so far how?

I SPECIFICALLY stated that the problem is with the adults that look at these pictures and immediately think of something sexual. That is odd to me. That has nothing to do with calling people pedophiles for wanting to protect kids. It is pointing out that adults who look at children and think about sex because of a wig or a skirt are not the people I want watching my kids any more than these pageant moms.

I don't think it's impossible, just highly unlikely.

Ohhhhhhhhh...

You mean you just made that up then?

Um, can you show me where I said that, or implied it? Of course it's my opinion, which is why I posted it.

I never said you said or implied it. I asked when it was going to happen. I guess you just want to spout your opinion on an online forum but as far as actually caring it ends with the stars on ATS?

Originally posted by Kitilani
These are really easy words to understand.

Indeed. I'll leave it to the reader to discern. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by thedoctorswife

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I'm a parent of 3 kids, for over 20 years. If you WON'T see what's wrong here my words are meaningless. I just hope you don't have kids.

He doesnt, he care'nt do, or he would.

He is a she and I am getting really tired of pointing out that Kitti is a really silly boys name.

My apologies, I had a George Eliot/Mary ann Evans moment, thought you were a bloke. You sound like one.

Click here for more information.

Yeah, these girls are having SO much fun...

Originally posted by thedoctorswife
My apologies, I had a George Eliot/Mary ann Evans moment, thought you were a bloke. You sound like one.

I do?

Is it my accent?

reply to post by Kitilani


I stick by my interpretation, because you have not stated otherwise.

Oh yes I have SOOO many stars.

Made what up exactly??? My implying that I didn't think the little girl came up with that outfit idea on her own?? Yes of course I made that up...I used my imagination...It's what I do in order to try and see where people are coming from.

I SPECIFICALLY stated that the problem is with the adults that look at these pictures and immediately think of something sexual. That is odd to me. That has nothing to do with calling people pedophiles for wanting to protect kids. It is pointing out that adults who look at children and think about sex because of a wig or a skirt are not the people I want watching my kids any more than these pageant moms.

And why is this a problem? So why don't you just come right out and say it then? What exactly would be your problem with someone watching your kids who thought that a child might be being exploited for sexual reasons because they are dressed like a prostitute? I'm still not clear on this.

reply to post by seeker11


Really? They do not appear to be having fun.
Please explain how them not having fun makes it sexy again?

reply to post by Kitilani


Do pedophiles care if children are having fun? Do child rapists care if the child has a smile on her face?

And if the child is not having fun then what is the point of them being in these pageants anyways??

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Kitilani
These are really easy words to understand.

Indeed. I'll leave it to the reader to discern. Good luck with that.

Hopefully "the reader" understands how when you look at a photograph and say what you see in it, you will only be correct if you discuss things actually in the photograph. I do not know why this is so confusing for you. Is this really what you wanted to argue with me about? What is actually in the photos? Do I need to post them again?

Maybe I just need your definition of "see" and "photograph?" Maybe I am just missing how you SEE things not pictured in a photo. I want that ability too.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...did i say they were?... no...

Did I say that you said that they were ? No.

Perhaps a course in reading comprehension and debating might suit you.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the parents or guardians of the child - correct... not some nosy buttinski, especially not one who has a salaciously bent mind...

So, please clearly demarcate where a child's activity is the sole responsibility of the parent or guardian, and when ''nosy buttinskis'' are entitled to intervene in the abuse and maltreatment of the parent or guardian's child.

Presumably - and I presume with worryingly unsure trepidation - you do not think that parents should be allowed to rape their children ? So, when does ''nosy buttinskism'' become ''genuinely worried citizen'', if someone suspects their neighbour of child abuse ?

I guess everyone is a ''nosy buttinski'' if they don't let someone else do what that someone else wants to do.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
(1) neither my words, my will nor my way of thinking has the power to give anyone carte blanche

Aha ! I never had you down as someone who would cower behind semantics and try to wriggle out of defending the point that you originally made, but, hey ho, such is life.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
(2) the laws made over the eons have not stopped abuse, exploitation, humiliation, etc., nor will they ever - because - those who like to harm children will always find a way to do what they want regardless of laws or social mores...

I'm not talking about people sexually abusing children. I'm talking about ''parents'' entering their young daughters into a beauty contest, without any rationale to explain why a 2 or 3 year old child would benefit from entering to the contest at such a nascent stage of their physical, intellectual and emotional development.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...btw - how do you know that the person who wrote the article isnt a child abuser?... did you just presume they are a good person?...

I made no comment, one way or the other, about the person who wrote the article. I didn't presume anything about him or her.

Your last point = Eppic Lojik phail.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...no... my opinion is based upon the behavior of self-righteous buttinskis who think they are so superior that they have a right to dictate how other people raise their own children...

Riiiiiiiight. So, according to you, parents have the ''right'' to rape and beat their children to a pulp, and anyone who disagrees with the parent's way of raising their children is a ''self-righteous buttinski''.

At least we know where you stand on the issue of ''rights''.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...keep on being a cheerleader for that ilk and, the next thang ya know, they'll be demonizing you for being so dang cute (as if thats your fault)...

Please stop flirting with me. It's unbecoming for a lady of your vintage. You're old enough to be my mother - and, quite possibly - my grandmother.

Although, I ''get'' the intended joke in your above comment.

Originally posted by seeker11
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I stick by my interpretation, because you have not stated otherwise.

Yes I did. Right in the post you just replied to. Why do you two reply to me without reading my posts? Let me repeat it for you.

I SPECIFICALLY stated that the problem is with the adults that look at these pictures and immediately think of something sexual. That is odd to me. That has nothing to do with calling people pedophiles for wanting to protect kids. It is pointing out that adults who look at children and think about sex because of a wig or a skirt are not the people I want watching my kids any more than these pageant moms.

That is exactly me stating otherwise right there, again.

Oh yes I have SOOO many stars.

I did not say you had lots of stars now did I?

CAN YOU TWO NOT READ? Seriously asking because I am really wasting my time using words I intend to use when you two just hit reply and ramble about things I never said.

Made what up exactly???

The scenario where you are positive that little girl had no say in how she was dressed where you stated you knew she did not see the movie and did not ask to dress that way. That would be what you made up EXACTLY.

My implying that I didn't think the little girl came up with that outfit idea on her own?? Yes of course I made that up...I used my imagination...It's what I do in order to try and see where people are coming from.

I know, we covered this after you stated it as a fact and I asked you how you knew. WE JUST WENT OVER THIS.

And why is this a problem?

Why is it a problem that adults look at a little girl that not dressed the least bit sexy and think about sex immediately?

Did you really ask that?

So why don't you just come right out and say it then? What exactly would be your problem with someone watching your kids who thought that a child might be being exploited for sexual reasons because they are dressed like a prostitute? I'm still not clear on this.

Yeah, again that is not what I said. You keep changing exactly why I stated I had a problem. It has nothing to do with wanting to protect children. It has everything to do with looking at them and thinking about sex. That is a problem for me.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by thedoctorswife
My apologies, I had a George Eliot/Mary ann Evans moment, thought you were a bloke. You sound like one.

I do?

Is it my accent?

Semantics, you know what i meant.

reply to post by intrepid

reply to post by seeker11


Allow me to do you both a favor. That is a lot of wasted posts with the two of you arguing with me over things you made up in your own minds and not at all reflective of what I wrote.

Do I approve of these types of things?
No.
Do I dissaprove?
No.
It is not my business. They are not my children. My children are my concern. No one has explained how this little girl has been hurt yet and I see the word "porn" tossed around quite liberally.
I think these paegents are weird and wrong on many levels. I think lots of things other parents do are weird and or wrong. It is not my business.
My problem is the huge blowing out of proportion so many of you do by calling it porn and ranting about how sexual it is.

There is not one sexual thing in those photos so I stand by my opinion that while the pagents are not something I would engage in - more importantly, anyone that looks at those photos and sees anything sexual in them needs to stay the hell away from me and mine.

We all clear now?

I look forward to another post twisting my words to make a different and erroneous argument. Or we can all just agree to disagree. Something tells me that many of you feel you have some moral obligation to do more arguing though.
I am just wondering if anyone's moral obligation is causing them to act any further than angrily arguing about in on ATS. Otherwise, who cares?
You understand why when a building is on fire, firemen act to put it out instead of getting online and just posting about what a shame it is.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
you do not think that parents should be allowed to rape their children ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'm not talking about people sexually abusing children.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
So, according to you, parents have the ''right'' to rape and beat their children to a pulp

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/16924023efc9.jpg[/atsimg]