Reply to NYT article about Instagram accounts for minors

Forum Index » General Parenting Discussion

Reply to "NYT article about Instagram accounts for minors "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [b]The women in this article were just thinking ahead enough to monetize the pedophiles[/b] fawning over their daughters. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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? [/quote]

Not in public - at the pool. You know, where it's appropriate.

And yes, that is very different from being photographed for social media, and different still from making suggestive poses there, and different still from offering subscriptions to additional photos of said child. One wonders why you feel the need to equate all these.[/quote]

No, it’s not appropriate. Children have been increasingly sexualized for years, it wasn’t long ago that manufacturers didn’t even make two pieces in toddler sizes. Now the same people criticizing social media images are defending behavior that 10 years ago wasn’t defensible. *You’re* the problem feeding these monsters, it’s astonishing you don’t realize that. [/quote]

What are you talking about? They always had 2 piece swimsuits for little girls. There’s pictures of me and my cousins in 2 piece swimsuits in the 80s.

The parents in this article were clearly mostly awful and doing it on purpose.  but regular people should be able to make REGULAR posts of their girls at dance, swim, cheer, and certain sports without the pervert army descending just because they’re wearing tight clothing that’s typical for the activity at hand. Regular parents just want to brag a little bit about their kids activities, no matter if the kids are doing robotics club or dance team. And gross men need to keep it in their pants for once in their miserable little lives. [/quote]

It sounds like not all the parents in this article even started out doing it on purpose.  They started out just wanting to brag about Larla’s gymnastics show and maybe give her a chance at a modeling career and then slid into what they are doing.  Which, yes, is terrible and they shouldn’t be doing and I really appreciate all the interviewees who said straight up that it was wrong and they regretted it — hopefully moms of younger kids wondering if having their kids be influencers would help pay for college will think again!  But I doubt any of these moms sat down and said to themselves, “how can I use my 6yo to make money off perverts.” [/quote]

Yeah, there was at least one mom in the article who’s daughter involved in dance was a small time influencer for, basically, a discount on costumes, which can be pretty $$$. So I get the appeal, financially, because kid activities do get really pricey, so any opportunity to offset the cost is something that people ultimately do look at. and then ultimately it becomes a question of “is it appropriate for a 10 year old or whatever to make money as a social media influencer, can they consent to this, etc.” And she even said in the article that she lost some IG privileges because she had blocked so many gross guys. I guess where I see it is, even if your daughter was making some money influencing for, I don’t know, chess apps or cooking classes or costume designing … there would STILL be gross guys. And there would still be the same women on here making excuses for them and “oh your pretty blonde 13 year old is on Insta with her cute desserts, of COURSE she’s going to get pervert comments, you should have expected this …” which I see as basically the same as “of COURSE you’re going to get cat call and sexually harassed in public, don’t go out in public if you don’t want to be harassed.” [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics