Log in

No account? Create an account
Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon
.:: ..::. .::..:...... .::

March 2014
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31

Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon [userpic]
Apparently this has been on Oprah...

It's funny, because so often childfree and those of us who spend time there are labeled as some kind of reactionary whackjobs because of a dislike of children. Parents trolling the comm never seem to notice posts like this one where the childfree are horrified by what people do to their children.

To summarize: There are nutjobs who take sexually suggestive photos of their own children and post them on the internet for pedophiles to... enjoy themselves with. They, of course, charge money for the, er, privlege, of whacking off to pictures of little girls in skimpy clothing and not-so-innocent body language.

Aside from the fact that what here in Washington we call a Level III offender (one who looks outside of his own home for victims, and is likely to re-offend) might use these kind of sites to skirt around the child-porn laws, as they're technically legal, one might decide to find one or more of these girls to live out their fantasies is apparently not an issue.

"We keep Cindy safe." Something said by the girl's mother on Oprah. "We're very careful about her location."

Dear mumsy. I'm curious, are you also being sure that your brother, the one who is taking the photos in question, is also not a pedophile? While it is entirely possible that he -- like you -- is only into the whole thing because it's making money (and I do wonder what you are going to do when the girl hits puberty and stops looking like a baby-perv's wet dream), it seems to me that there's a terribly high possibility that if he hasn't got the morals to recognize that sexualizing his niece is wrong, he might not be aware that fucking her is inappropriate too. It's all speculation, of course, but in my years of working for a psychologist who treated sex offenders I can honestly say that the creep-factor of the uncle taking those photos is easily as high as the creep-factor of any psych-eval I ever typed up for him.

I can envision the following scenario, myself:

Mumsy and/or brother were possibly molested as children. This does some odd things to thinking processes and ideas about when sexualization is 'okay.' They grow up.

Mumsy has a darling little girl. Brother takes an interest, saying "Gosh, she's so pretty, like you were when you were a girl!"

Y'know, when daddy, or uncle, or the next door neighbor thought she was oh-so-pretty, and put-your-mouth-there-little-girl, and don't-tell-anyone-it's-our-little-secret!

"Yeah! She could grow up to be a model." *sighs, remembering lost opportunities, or beauty, or something.*

"Well, I've seen these sites that promote pretty girls like our dearest one here..." *hand ruffles little girl's hair, and perhaps she flinches a bit.* "We could do something like that! Maybe she'd be discovered! We could dress her up and I bet there's people guys like me, heh, since I'm spending half my income on similar sites who would pay good money to see our kid."

"Huh." says mumsy, noting the short-shorts and cropped tank her daughter is in, and ignoring the bruises and too-knowing eyes because, hey, isn't that the way it always is for little girls? "We'll have to keep her safe."

"Of course we will! No one will know where she is." After all, why let some other nutcase touch what's his and in his control?

"Do it."

And they go on to make a lot of money off of a child's horror. Even if this isn't the existence of 'Cindy', there are other sites where I would guarantee it's a close facsimile. And no one, not Oprah, the FBI, real talent agencies, or anyone will convince them that they're wrong to do it because the sexploitation is what mommy remembers, and uncle is getting his jollies and being paid for it. Because even if they know intellectually that it's wrong, in their hearts they can't see it because it is no different from what they lived through before.

And thus a cycle is born and perpetuated.

And it sickens me.


That's just...I can't even imagine. Okay so I'm not a psychologist, but how could anyone think that's okay? What the fuck? I can't even imagine doing something like that with my nephew. That's just sick and twisted and wrong and uggh. I don't know. So the mother was abused as a child...that's still not an excuse. A person can look back at past abuse and realize that was wrong. Can't she? I would hope so. People...I just don't know.

Well, some both sort of do and don't, particularly if they've never received any counselling. They know that society thinks it's wrong in a general sort of way, but have difficulty actually applying that to their own lives and experiences. Depending on how the molester grooms them (the technical term for essentially preparing/seducing a child into sexual relations/relationship/activities), they may honestly believe that society is 'wrong' and that there's nothing wrong with it at all.

Far as I can tell, this sort of thing is called a 'thinking error' -- it's kind of a glitch in their software, I suppose. They never learned that it was *really* wrong, just that some people would think it was wrong, if you can see the difference. Many grow up to realize that it truly was wrong, but sometimes they don't -- and in an environment in which no one in the immediate family seems to have a problem with it, it's something that tends to be perpetuated, thus creating a cycle.

Sucks, doesn't it?

And these people, who have publicized themselves on Oprah, are still walking around free because...?

I'm not entirely sure. Apparently the site is just this side of legal (at a guess it's all suggestive posing but clothes remain on all the appropriate bits.)

What I don't get is why CPS hasn't become involved to at least try and determine if the girl is being molested by a member of her family, since, as I said, I read that post and red flags went off all over the place in my mind given what I know of offenders of this type. It's flipping scary.