France bans children's beauty contests in bid to stop the 'hyper-sexualisation' of youngsters.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I think a lot of the debate here is seriously overcomplicating a simple issue.

Is it right or wrong to turn a child in the single digits for age, into a clear sex object? The one I used as an example earlier in the thread that I'd actually found in relation to a case of a Mom suing over people seeing her precious Prosti-Tot as the sexual object she was made into, was outright making the little girl look like the Call Girl in "Pretty Woman".

You have very good points on all the related but separate issues. In the end....it's still a very simple thing. Should kids far too young physically AND mentally to particpate (even daydreaming) in sex, be used as objects of it for others? I say absolutely and 100% NO.

Is every pageant with little kids a parade of Prosti-Tots? Nope.. I don't think so. They've had classy pageants that didn't have them imitating street walkers for a long long time. It works for those into that sort of thing.

I must say though... when Pedo sites (legal ones..believe it or not) appear to showcase these toddlers in a "Non-Nude" sexual display? Yeah..that's about the point I think society can stop trying to tell itself these girls are not being seen how they are being seen and see about discouraging the practice by all means.

I guess I'd just like to see kids be given the chance to mature a little while still being kids...before taking on the issues and real life pressures they'll have all too soon (Not to mention.. yes. the morality of it..but I'll leave that alone in this group)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It comes down to age and what they should wear, who should see them, who pressures them, etc.

Some people say 12, others 14, others 16, others 18, others never.

I personally think they should NOT be wearing lingerie and bikinis until 16. Or high heels, mini-skirts, etc.

Some people like to exhibition themselves from 10 in the school enviroment but I guess since it is a limited audience less harm is done. Going on the national scene with 'prostitution like qualities' is embarrasing even for a progressive person such as myself.

I am not a fanatic in anything. I believe in modesty and am against exploitation(especially for minors whom are incapable of making sound decisions).

BardingTheBard
Did nobody else notice that the articles also mentioned the attempt to bring regulations in on child models was rejected?



This is a feel good measure... which hasn't even *passed* yet.

It's something that people can point to and say "see... we did something!" while not actually doing a damn thing for the girls in reality. I would be surprised if very many who voted for it have even spoken to a single one of those girls.

Vogue can still print their pictures of 10 year olds dressed like their adult models. They can still be put in TV shows. They can still sell sexy underwear to 6 year olds. They just can't *compete* while wearing them.

Or maybe they can so long as they are being judged on their "costume" and not their "beauty" since that's what the legislation is addressing. Costume contests for boys aren't banned... and it's a double standard to let boys have costume contests but not girls, yeah? But wait.. boys can be superman... can girls be supergirl? What is an acceptable supergirl costume and what isn't? Is that defined in this law? No.

Kids can still be pushed into smashing their bodies together in sports competitions. Gymnasts and ballerinas will continue their competitions despite the consequences when under the thumb of an overbearingly ambitious parent.

Gymnasts and ballerinas undergo the same or worse dietary and social restrictions as pageant models... and are competing against each other on looks, size, skill, showmanship, etc virtually every day... not just at special events. Nobody can pretend gymnasts and ballerinas don't subject their bodies to torture in order to remain thin, beautiful, small, whatever their "needs" are to "be the best". Then add in the physical injuries.

I find it curious that virtually every news story on this has photos on display along with the article, and not always the "nice" ones. So in the process of hailing it a victory for children's rights... we'll sit here and continue to plaster their images for everyone to gawk at. Did those girls consent to their images being used in those articles?

I've seen little to no concern in here over the worldwide display of those girls via these articles. Ban the pageant because they are over-sexualizing girls... but here... let us provide you with some pictures.

You're being hoodwinked and told this is something it isn't... and being led to believe it is doing something it is not.

Girls can still be put on stages in outfits you don't like in France.

Oh fer #s sake, calm down! Problem with banning modeling- many catalogues and commercials use small children for modeling, but without any attempt to sexualize them. This was supposed to be a statement about cultural norms and expectations. That's all! This is not a police state.

The culture and peoples are different here; for one, they did not get raised to think it is "bad" to listen to peer pressure or follow the crowd- on the contrary. Their saying is that it is bad "to listen to yourself".
They are into the whole "being your brothers keeper" values, and figure others can be more objective about what you are doing then you can yourself. They believe shared cultural values, morals and traditions are very important for retaining solidarity in a nation.

Judge that as you want, like it or hate it. The fact and pertinance here is that - the people pay attention to what is collectively accepted or not. They don't need to have the police enforce it- they give in to peer pressure.
If the majority decides that something is "not good" then most people will follow that.

The one company that tried to sell lingerie (which only means "underwear" in french) that looked a bit adult was cut off at the bud- not legally closed down, people just refused to buy them. These big media statements actually WORK here. No need for prisons sentences.

But rant on if it does you some good somehow....

reply to post by rickymouse


everyone makes a big fuss of kidophilia but until now nobody said about this kind of state/public accepted form of kidophilia.on tv,posters,magazines.promoting it.

i mean all the programs including kids programs are full of scantily clad girls with tons of makeup.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Ahh, Okay, So the issues you expressed earlier are entirely to do with age and appropriate place of Government to get into the middle of things? That, as opposed to some who balk at the idea of anyone taking a dim view of the very young being paraded this way. It sounds like we do agree on that with perhaps the definition of a threshold being the question?

I think the child stars get a bad rap and hard life. They are old enough to at least dig in and refuse to continue if it comes down to it though. It's hard, if not impossible to even joke about Gov't intervention in that area. Preteens/Teens being radically different in my mind for this topic from toddlers.

I gotta admit...I was wondering if you were more the 'hands off' regardless of age or circumstance to the regulation....and happy to see so many of us do see a line. It may be as subjective, at times, as the Super Court's famous words about porn? Then again though, it really isn't in the end, is it?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


This topic was complicated to begin with. Yes lines should be drawn at some point. I am against big government intruding everywhere, not against government entirely.

I have no problem with beauty pageantry conducted at early ages(maybe 8) provided they wear proper clothing, act their age and are afforded the protection they deserve. The issue is people acting their age.

I have seen many baby models in magazines pushing baby food, childrens clothing, cardboard games, etc.

Again the line in the sand imo should be under 16 no provocative dressing. It seems france took it a step forward and banned ALL beauty pageantry under 16 with jail penalties for those that violate this statue.

France and USA have different cultures and different demands.

beckybecky
reply to post by rickymouse

 

everyone makes a big fuss of kidophilia but until now nobody said about this kind of state/public accepted form of kidophilia.on tv,posters,magazines.promoting it.

i mean all the programs including kids programs are full of scantily clad girls with tons of makeup.

These pageants may be causing an increase in the number of pedophiles. Kids with problems in their teens may get ideas from these young girls use of sexual expression in their cloths and makeup and it carries on into adulthood. This would not be the only factor involved, just a possible reinforcement for their beliefs. Seductive cloths on kids do not cause this problem but they often add fuel to the fire.

FreedomEntered
No they have banned it altogeather content of children selling adult products in a provocative manner.

Ie, why they used vogue as an example

"The measure follows a parliamentary report "Against Hyper-Sexualisation: A New Fight For Equality" which called for a ban on child-size adult clothing, such as padded bras and high-heeled shoes and an end to beauty competitions for the under 16s."http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/child-beauty-contests-banned-in-france/story-fni0xs63-1226722367785

A parliamentary report is not the law. It's the *suggestions*. This is why articles are mentioning that the regulations for child models and other aspects requested were not voted in. And you are incorrect... they specifically left IN the ability for child models to be used to advertise adult products... and made no statements about the level of provocativeness that is allowed.

FreedomEntered
Its not ONLY beauty pageants its the over sexualisation of youngsters per say. Ie, they are fighting to prevent them having to behave sexually older than they are to please judges/teachers etc.

No one has been hoodwinked.

Show me the legislation text that addresses clothing, magazines, "costume" contests, etc. In fact people are already debating on whether it applies to online photo contests because it's not clear.

www.digitaljournal.com...

The legislation, which simply reads "Organizing beauty competitions for children under 16 is banned," was approved by a vote of 197-146.

It doesn't specify what kind of competitions would be covered, including whether it would extend to online photo competitions or pretty baby contests.

In the same debate, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have restricted the use of models under age 16 to modeling for products or services destined for children.

Notice in particular... that when it's the advertisers and corporations that will be affected... well... we can't restrict *that*... much less ban it. Why?

FreedomEntered
They don't approve of a " looks " based culture for children. I am in agreement with them.

I am in agreement too. Which is why it matters to me what it is *actually* doing, not what it's being painted as or believed to be by those who just see the headline. Then further down the road... what the long term unintended consequences, of which we have ample historical data to pull from, are likely to be.

Bluesma
This was supposed to be a statement about cultural norms and expectations. That's all!

abcnews.go.com...

The amendment says it's aimed at protecting children from danger and being prematurely forced into roles of seduction that harm their development.

Bluesma
The fact and pertinance here is that - the people pay attention to what is collectively accepted or not. They don't need to have the police enforce it- they give in to peer pressure.
If the majority decides that something is "not good" then most people will follow that.

The one company that tried to sell lingerie (which only means "underwear" in french) that looked a bit adult was cut off at the bud- not legally closed down, people just refused to buy them. These big media statements actually WORK here. No need for prisons sentences.

Emphasis mine.

Then why are there prison sentences and massive fines? This is not just a statement... this is using the threat of prison. The police. According to your government you DO need the police to enforce it and that's exactly what this amendment gives the police the power to do.

You are in fact arguing for and quite effectively making EXACTLY what my point has been this entire time... that these are best solved culturally... not legislatively.

www.thelocal.fr...

Under the new law, organizers of pageants under the age of 16 may now face up to two years in prison if they fail to comply with the ban and a fine of up to €30,000 ($40,000).

Bluesma
But rant on if it does you some good somehow....

Hopefully it will have done us all a little good in the long run.

BardingTheBard


Then why are there prison sentences and massive fines? This is not just a statement... this is using the threat of prison. The police. According to your government you DO need the police to enforce it and that's exactly what this amendment gives the police the power to do.

You are in fact arguing for and quite effectively making EXACTLY what my point has been this entire time... that these are best solved culturally... not legislatively.

www.thelocal.fr...

Under the new law, organizers of pageants under the age of 16 may now face up to two years in prison if they fail to comply with the ban and a fine of up to €30,000 ($40,000).

LOL! I am going to print this out and show it to my collegues at work! I can already foresee their reactions- they are going to laugh and say, "What do they think over there? That we have a bunch of american brutes for police???

The latin people do not give their police power and respect, as we do- they do not carry guns and they are very apologetic if you raise your voice.
Just watch and see how many people are actually prosecuted. For one, only ONE "Mini-Miss" competition exists here- he might protest, but I am willing to bet money nobody will join him.

The people will not challenge this and not because they are afraid of being arrested. But because their moral senses agree with it.
It is the majority that has spoken, and here, that is the important point.
That is what makes the difference.
I understand, as an american, that we get all scared of big policemen with big weapons throwing us on the ground and threatening us... but that is NOT the reality here.

reply to post by Bluesma

Thank you for your time... and helping emphasize the point for me.
/salute

reply to post by BardingTheBard


I certainly do not agree with or see any rationale to your point.
The french people decided the american tradition of raising girls to become manipulative sex objects is not for them. They made a statement- we'll not do that.
End of story.
No melodrama, no taboo.

It also changes nothing for americans, who can continue on with their taboos/perversions concerning sex and children.

Bluesma
I certainly do not agree with or see any rationale to your point.
The french people decided the american tradition of raising girls to become manipulative sex objects is not for them. They made a statement- we'll not do that.
End of story.
No melodrama, no taboo.

The French government decided to hand over the legal right to turn girls under 16 into manipulative sex objects to the corporations and advertisers alone.

Should a citizen hold a competition of girls wearing less sexual clothes than advertisers are legally allowed to dress them in, there is now legislation allowing the application of fines and/or prison.

This is undeniable when looking at the fact that the proposal to restrict models under 16 from advertising adult products was voted down. There was a specific request to hold corporations to the same rules as parents, but it was voted down.

The girls (or mothers) who were and wanted to be in pageants still have the modelling industry to go into if they wish to continue pursuing that sort of interest. How convenient, yes? An industry where they are still competing against each other. Along with all the other baggage of the commercial modelling business.

That's what the French government decided.

I'm quite aware you don't see the point... which is what makes your comments that much more meaningful in their unintentional support.

Thank you again.

rickymouse

beckybecky
reply to post by rickymouse

 

everyone makes a big fuss of kidophilia but until now nobody said about this kind of state/public accepted form of kidophilia.on tv,posters,magazines.promoting it.

i mean all the programs including kids programs are full of scantily clad girls with tons of makeup.

These pageants may be causing an increase in the number of pedophiles. Kids with problems in their teens may get ideas from these young girls use of sexual expression in their cloths and makeup and it carries on into adulthood. This would not be the only factor involved, just a possible reinforcement for their beliefs. Seductive cloths on kids do not cause this problem but they often add fuel to the fire.

I am in total agreement with you, the truly scary thing is in the fact that people who see a problem with this don't speak up and voice discontent. That and the fact that this type of "entertainment" not only gets the ratings and corporate dollars to not only survive but yet thrive. What a scary and disturbing we world we live in.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


go on the froggies..... great decision...

reply to post by BardingTheBard


The law is indeed hypocritical since it makes that exception, but on the otherhand most contestants prefer the high profile corporate sponsored events because they have the greatest audience and the best possibility to become celebrities.

I mean if you are going to be an exhibitionist might as well go all the way. LMAO!