NYT article about Instagram accounts for minors

[Anonymous]

Thank you very much for sharing the article! It was an interesting read — I was a skater and a dancer as a kid and still do hobbies where skin tight clothing is helpful/normal so I don’t think of images of kids or indeed adults in sports bras and shorts as inherently “sexy” or “racy” but obviously the posing and style and activities do make a difference. I used have my insta account public because I wanted to be able to make friends in my hobby but last week I got three unknown (male) followers without any relationship to me or my hobbies and promptly locked it.

My kids are still young and I already had no intention of ever letting them have public social media accounts (hopefully no social media ever but we’ll see what tons are like when they’re in high school) and this article definitely confirmed it. Even the moms who are trying to keep their kids accounts free of non creepy followers can’t do so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

I was a dance kid too and don’t mind two-piece swimsuits, but the PP is primarily right. It’s not “pinching someone vs. murdering him”, it’s “severely beating someone up vs. murdering him.” The outraged “cool moms” are just a step behind.

So wearing a two-piece to a pool is almost the same (severely beating vs. murdering) as photographing your child in suggestive poses to attract male attention, then send additional photos for money? I mean, are you insane?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

lol. Tell me you have never been in the dance world without telling me.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting how just about all the discourse on this article is about policing women and girls behavior and not the pedos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Horrifying.

I have a tween DD who's into sports, and while it's nowhere near as bad, I'm still stunned by the number of girls whose parents have set up Insta accounts to promote them. I get that it's part of recruiting once they're in HS, but at age 10? WTH are you putting your kid out there?

Ick.

I think it's just another way people live vicariously through their children's success and achievements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

I was a dance kid too and don’t mind two-piece swimsuits, but the PP is primarily right. It’s not “pinching someone vs. murdering him”, it’s “severely beating someone up vs. murdering him.” The outraged “cool moms” are just a step behind.

So wearing a two-piece to a pool is almost the same (severely beating vs. murdering) as photographing your child in suggestive poses to attract male attention, then send additional photos for money? I mean, are you insane?

What is the purpose of a 3 year old in a bra? So you believe a child wearing next to nothing in public is fine, as long as it’s not on social media?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting how just about all the discourse on this article is about policing women and girls behavior and not the pedos.

Always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

I was a dance kid too and don’t mind two-piece swimsuits, but the PP is primarily right. It’s not “pinching someone vs. murdering him”, it’s “severely beating someone up vs. murdering him.” The outraged “cool moms” are just a step behind.

So wearing a two-piece to a pool is almost the same (severely beating vs. murdering) as photographing your child in suggestive poses to attract male attention, then send additional photos for money? I mean, are you insane?

No, but you’re illiterate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting how just about all the discourse on this article is about policing women and girls behavior and not the pedos.

No one is interested in policing these women and their children. Even I only slightly care about what they are doing to their kids. THEY get in over their heads and ask the police for help. That's impossible. You can't catch them all. If they want to keep their kids safe, they can do what the educated parent tries to do. Keep their young kids' images of the internet for as long as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

lol. Tell me you have never been in the dance world without telling me.

lol,
That would be one bet you would win. That's a choice I'm pretty happy about making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

I was a dance kid too and don’t mind two-piece swimsuits, but the PP is primarily right. It’s not “pinching someone vs. murdering him”, it’s “severely beating someone up vs. murdering him.” The outraged “cool moms” are just a step behind.

So wearing a two-piece to a pool is almost the same (severely beating vs. murdering) as photographing your child in suggestive poses to attract male attention, then send additional photos for money? I mean, are you insane?

What is the purpose of a 3 year old in a bra? So you believe a child wearing next to nothing in public is fine, as long as it’s not on social media?

As a former dancer who is not, never has been, and never will be (and whose children never be I devotedly hope) on social media: the point of wearing skintight clothing for children of all ages is that it’s convenient and helpful for certain activities such as swimming (bulky clothes get in the way), dance (ease of movement and also lets the teacher be able to see that students are b doing techniques correctly), figure skating (same as dance we the addition of not having extra fabric to get caught on your blades). Leotards, leggings, tights, shorts, skintight tops (and length/length of sleeves) are all fine, but especially if the kids are moving or their tops and bottoms are different sizes, they’ll likely find two piece and minimal fabric more comfortable.

And frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with 3yo wearing whatever the heck they feel like including nothing because they are, and I can’t overstate this enough, 3 years old and anyone sexualizing them is the issue not whatever the 3yo is wearing. I think kids shouldn’t be allowed on social media including via parent run accounts but I mostly think anyone who sends sketchy comments and DMs should be blocked and banned if reported. But that’s not going to happen because social media companies make money via clicks and views and subscriptions and ads and they don’t care if that money is coming from creeps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

I was a dance kid too and don’t mind two-piece swimsuits, but the PP is primarily right. It’s not “pinching someone vs. murdering him”, it’s “severely beating someone up vs. murdering him.” The outraged “cool moms” are just a step behind.

So wearing a two-piece to a pool is almost the same (severely beating vs. murdering) as photographing your child in suggestive poses to attract male attention, then send additional photos for money? I mean, are you insane?

What is the purpose of a 3 year old in a bra? So you believe a child wearing next to nothing in public is fine, as long as it’s not on social media?

As a former dancer who is not, never has been, and never will be (and whose children never be I devotedly hope) on social media: the point of wearing skintight clothing for children of all ages is that it’s convenient and helpful for certain activities such as swimming (bulky clothes get in the way), dance (ease of movement and also lets the teacher be able to see that students are b doing techniques correctly), figure skating (same as dance we the addition of not having extra fabric to get caught on your blades). Leotards, leggings, tights, shorts, skintight tops (and length/length of sleeves) are all fine, but especially if the kids are moving or their tops and bottoms are different sizes, they’ll likely find two piece and minimal fabric more comfortable.

And frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with 3yo wearing whatever the heck they feel like including nothing because they are, and I can’t overstate this enough, 3 years old and anyone sexualizing them is the issue not whatever the 3yo is wearing. I think kids shouldn’t be allowed on social media including via parent run accounts but I mostly think anyone who sends sketchy comments and DMs should be blocked and banned if reported. But that’s not going to happen because social media companies make money via clicks and views and subscriptions and ads and they don’t care if that money is coming from creeps.

Man where is this utopia you live? Does your 3 year old walk to preschool themselves too? Sleepovers with anyone they want, unlimited access to internet. Let’s all move there! No crime or child predators to protect our children from!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

I was a dance kid too and don’t mind two-piece swimsuits, but the PP is primarily right. It’s not “pinching someone vs. murdering him”, it’s “severely beating someone up vs. murdering him.” The outraged “cool moms” are just a step behind.

So wearing a two-piece to a pool is almost the same (severely beating vs. murdering) as photographing your child in suggestive poses to attract male attention, then send additional photos for money? I mean, are you insane?

What is the purpose of a 3 year old in a bra? So you believe a child wearing next to nothing in public is fine, as long as it’s not on social media?

As a former dancer who is not, never has been, and never will be (and whose children never be I devotedly hope) on social media: the point of wearing skintight clothing for children of all ages is that it’s convenient and helpful for certain activities such as swimming (bulky clothes get in the way), dance (ease of movement and also lets the teacher be able to see that students are b doing techniques correctly), figure skating (same as dance we the addition of not having extra fabric to get caught on your blades). Leotards, leggings, tights, shorts, skintight tops (and length/length of sleeves) are all fine, but especially if the kids are moving or their tops and bottoms are different sizes, they’ll likely find two piece and minimal fabric more comfortable.

And frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with 3yo wearing whatever the heck they feel like including nothing because they are, and I can’t overstate this enough, 3 years old and anyone sexualizing them is the issue not whatever the 3yo is wearing. I think kids shouldn’t be allowed on social media including via parent run accounts but I mostly think anyone who sends sketchy comments and DMs should be blocked and banned if reported. But that’s not going to happen because social media companies make money via clicks and views and subscriptions and ads and they don’t care if that money is coming from creeps.

Man where is this utopia you live? Does your 3 year old walk to preschool themselves too? Sleepovers with anyone they want, unlimited access to internet. Let’s all move there! No crime or child predators to protect our children from!

Sorry if I wasn’t clear — what I was trying to say is that as far as I’m concerned the problem isn’t what the kids are or aren’t wearing. The problem is that the world contains creepy people and social media puts creepy people and kids in contact and social media companies are not incentivized to block that contact. Which in my opinion is the biggest problem here, not the kids or even their moms. This article is a good thing to inform other parents of the situation don’t get into these things not to lambast the parents or the kids. The parents interviewed seemed to have ended up where they are through ignorance and optimism and desperation and it’s good to inform others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

I was a dance kid too and don’t mind two-piece swimsuits, but the PP is primarily right. It’s not “pinching someone vs. murdering him”, it’s “severely beating someone up vs. murdering him.” The outraged “cool moms” are just a step behind.

So wearing a two-piece to a pool is almost the same (severely beating vs. murdering) as photographing your child in suggestive poses to attract male attention, then send additional photos for money? I mean, are you insane?

What is the purpose of a 3 year old in a bra? So you believe a child wearing next to nothing in public is fine, as long as it’s not on social media?

As a former dancer who is not, never has been, and never will be (and whose children never be I devotedly hope) on social media: the point of wearing skintight clothing for children of all ages is that it’s convenient and helpful for certain activities such as swimming (bulky clothes get in the way), dance (ease of movement and also lets the teacher be able to see that students are b doing techniques correctly), figure skating (same as dance we the addition of not having extra fabric to get caught on your blades). Leotards, leggings, tights, shorts, skintight tops (and length/length of sleeves) are all fine, but especially if the kids are moving or their tops and bottoms are different sizes, they’ll likely find two piece and minimal fabric more comfortable.

And frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with 3yo wearing whatever the heck they feel like including nothing because they are, and I can’t overstate this enough, 3 years old and anyone sexualizing them is the issue not whatever the 3yo is wearing. I think kids shouldn’t be allowed on social media including via parent run accounts but I mostly think anyone who sends sketchy comments and DMs should be blocked and banned if reported. But that’s not going to happen because social media companies make money via clicks and views and subscriptions and ads and they don’t care if that money is coming from creeps.

Man where is this utopia you live? Does your 3 year old walk to preschool themselves too? Sleepovers with anyone they want, unlimited access to internet. Let’s all move there! No crime or child predators to protect our children from!

Sorry if I wasn’t clear — what I was trying to say is that as far as I’m concerned the problem isn’t what the kids are or aren’t wearing. The problem is that the world contains creepy people and social media puts creepy people and kids in contact and social media companies are not incentivized to block that contact. Which in my opinion is the biggest problem here, not the kids or even their moms. This article is a good thing to inform other parents of the situation don’t get into these things not to lambast the parents or the kids. The parents interviewed seemed to have ended up where they are through ignorance and optimism and desperation and it’s good to inform others.

Oh and my 3yo wears clothes out of the house because I understand social norms… but I also understand that someone who’s sexualizing 3yos will do so whether she’s in leggings and a tee shirt or a sundress or a leotard. Which is why there are no publicly posted pictures of her anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a dance kid and this seems like the natural progression of dance moms. Little kids in scantily clothed wardrobes is nothing new and of course it would eventually go online. Let me ask the moms who are “paralyzed sick” over it: do you buy your underage daughter two-piece swimsuits? Let her wear crop tops and booty shorts? Do you let her shimmy during dance practice because “it’s just a normal dance move”? If you do please shut your mouth, you’re doing the same thing. The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles fawning over their daughters.

Not a dance mom, have no idea what "shimmy" is, but thinking ahead and monetizing pedophiles' interests is much worse than having your DD wear a two-piece swimsuit (what?). There is nothing natural or inevitable about making those additional steps; it's like saying pinching someone is the same as murdering him, just a few steps ahead.

I was a dance kid too and don’t mind two-piece swimsuits, but the PP is primarily right. It’s not “pinching someone vs. murdering him”, it’s “severely beating someone up vs. murdering him.” The outraged “cool moms” are just a step behind.

So wearing a two-piece to a pool is almost the same (severely beating vs. murdering) as photographing your child in suggestive poses to attract male attention, then send additional photos for money? I mean, are you insane?

What is the purpose of a 3 year old in a bra? So you believe a child wearing next to nothing in public is fine, as long as it’s not on social media?

As a former dancer who is not, never has been, and never will be (and whose children never be I devotedly hope) on social media: the point of wearing skintight clothing for children of all ages is that it’s convenient and helpful for certain activities such as swimming (bulky clothes get in the way), dance (ease of movement and also lets the teacher be able to see that students are b doing techniques correctly), figure skating (same as dance we the addition of not having extra fabric to get caught on your blades). Leotards, leggings, tights, shorts, skintight tops (and length/length of sleeves) are all fine, but especially if the kids are moving or their tops and bottoms are different sizes, they’ll likely find two piece and minimal fabric more comfortable.

And frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with 3yo wearing whatever the heck they feel like including nothing because they are, and I can’t overstate this enough, 3 years old and anyone sexualizing them is the issue not whatever the 3yo is wearing. I think kids shouldn’t be allowed on social media including via parent run accounts but I mostly think anyone who sends sketchy comments and DMs should be blocked and banned if reported. But that’s not going to happen because social media companies make money via clicks and views and subscriptions and ads and they don’t care if that money is coming from creeps.

Man where is this utopia you live? Does your 3 year old walk to preschool themselves too? Sleepovers with anyone they want, unlimited access to internet. Let’s all move there! No crime or child predators to protect our children from!

Sorry if I wasn’t clear — what I was trying to say is that as far as I’m concerned the problem isn’t what the kids are or aren’t wearing. The problem is that the world contains creepy people and social media puts creepy people and kids in contact and social media companies are not incentivized to block that contact. Which in my opinion is the biggest problem here, not the kids or even their moms. This article is a good thing to inform other parents of the situation don’t get into these things not to lambast the parents or the kids. The parents interviewed seemed to have ended up where they are through ignorance and optimism and desperation and it’s good to inform others.

Oh and my 3yo wears clothes out of the house because I understand social norms… but I also understand that someone who’s sexualizing 3yos will do so whether she’s in leggings and a tee shirt or a sundress or a leotard. Which is why there are no publicly posted pictures of her anywhere.

And yet these moms are manufacturing and selling the very drug these pedos need to sustain themselves.

There is a reason we have locks on our doors and PINs for our bank cards - because there are bad people out there. These women are deliberately selling pedo images of THEIR OWN CHILDREN and then calling foul when their clientele (and it is their clientele, make no mistake about it) gets rowdy.

No Ma'am, that is now how this works.