Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Isn’t the truth hard to swallow when it is an ugly truth?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26821points) July 20th, 2015

There is that famous exchange in A Few Good men where Col. Jessep told Kaffee he could not handle the truth. Isn’t that true in some cases, especially when the truth is ugly? In a Google search this link came up, the title seemed interesting so I clicked on. I was a bit perplexed as the title did not seem to have anything to do with the body of the text. I also did not see any correlation the images with the text had to do with the text. If it was about general sexploitation of females or teens I guess it would have made sense. The images were of obvious girls and some were clearly women. One of the pics of one that looked like a teen or younger had a Website posted on the pic. Out of curiosity I Googled Bobbie Model to see if anything came up as the piece was about two years old. Surely enough, the girl has a supposed model site; it is basically the 1st link that comes up. It is changed to .net now, and the Google image strip was all her. Here is the hard truth of it. Off the splash page you see her not in couture but heels, minis, bikinis, etc. in what you would call pinup poses. That leads to some interesting questions. Since her photos under Google age progress, she must have been at it awhile.

• Since she likely cannot put together a slick Webpage like that on her own, who is helping her?
• If the parents don’t know what photos of their girl out there on the Net and being charged a viewing fee for, why don’t they?
• If the girl thought she was going to be a runway model by her involvement, is she that clueless not to wonder why she is in undies, minis, and such with nary a gown in sight?
• Just for argument, if membership to the site to see the full gallery is $30 (just to have a number to work with), and there are 1,000 paid members, that is $35,000 in revenue generated a month, how much is she getting?
• If she is getting a hunk to spend on whatever, is that the only motivation for her to do it so long?
• The fact that the site is up (and presuming making money) are they selling to a small number of the population or a larger portion that just hide their appetite behind their user account?
• Are the parents better or worse for providing the eye-candy to those with that particular appetite?

Those are just a few questions that might have interesting answers, there are undeniable facts that adults are part of the process and enriching their pockets doing so, certainly some answers people don’t want to believe because they are hard answers and to some the results are ugly. But fact is, she is not the only one doing it, and she can’t do it without adult involvement. In the end, even though she might see a lot of that money, what message is she being taught that she doesn’t have to be smart; she just has to be titillating?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

30 Answers

elbanditoroso's avatar

Wow, your question is all over the place. In fact, I’m not really sure what you’re hyped up about.

I think your outrage-of-the-day is that girls in bathing suits are featured on web sites, and the girls appear to be less than 18 years old? Is that what’s bugging you? Most of the rest of your post is just vituperation.

There are only two issues here:

legality – the girls are covered – this is not nudity.

is this a ‘societal good? – I’m not sure it matters.

First, there we live in a capitalistic market economy, and if they’re making $35K a month, then (a) there is a willing market for this stuff and (b) the girls (and parents/agents) are making a good salary. It’s legal commerce. There are lots of things that I disapprove of that are bought and sold every day – guns, for example. But we live in a pluralistic capital society.

Second, it’s not my concern whether the girls get the money, or a website owner, or a parent, or whatever. For one thing, I’ll never know. But more to the point, why should I have a say? I don’t ask a book author how much of the $27.95 I paid for the latest best seller goes to him and how much to the publisher. I don’t ask the recording artist how much he makes off the latest album and how much goes to his studio.

You can choose to be outraged by anything you want, @Hypocrisy_Central – it’s a free country. I don’t share this one.

chyna's avatar

What I wonder about @hypocracy central is why, as a Christian, you are looking at these pictures? I am really not trying to be mean, but it seems that as the good Christian you say you are, you would not only by pass looking at such things, but you would not sit around and ponder them either.

zenvelo's avatar

Real truth is never a shard to swallow when shared to begin with; it is only difficult when the truth is revealed along with the lies that preceded it.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Good Christian? Yeah, run with that.

elbanditoroso's avatar

What’s a good christian? In the Crusades, it was defined as someone who killed a lot of Jews and Moslems.

Not sure what it is today.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

There’s something to chew on.

janbb's avatar

“Hypocrisy Central” says it all.

cazzie's avatar

Do you know the difference between a young girl being exploited, a young girl being sexualised as opposed to a young girl who feels confident enough in herself she can wear a tank top without feeling self-conscious? You see, the exploiting and the sexualisation is being done by the one who is looking at her.

cazzie's avatar

Also, sorry to double post, but these young girls can’t consent. They are children. The photographer who is taking the pictures of the girls provocatively posed is the one to be taking a long hard look at.

So, there’s your truth.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

How old are these girls? I haven’t checked out the link.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@cazzie – agreed. In addition to looking at the photographer, I would also want to know – where are the parents?

cazzie's avatar

I didn’t know what a Bobby Photo was. Apparently, according to my google filter, it is a lead-in to child pornography.

I’m sure the photographer probably took some nice photos of the kids to show the parents, too. Just didn’t show them these. But these kids are being exploited. Simple as that. ALL of the adults involved are using these girls, the photographers, the parents (if they even know), and the websites collecting the money. It is illegal. My security settings on my computer let me know exactly what this was. If someone carries on looking at the images, it isn’t by mistake. They are creeps. These sites should be hacked and all their account holders should be prosecuted as well as the adults involved.

Also, it is not Miley Cyrus’s fault.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@cazzie – let me give you a real life example.

I have a niece who is 15 years old. (My sister’s younger daughter). They took a cruise from San Diego in 2014. There are photos of all of them (my sister, brother in law, my niece, and my nephew) in various places – at the beach off the coast of Mexico, at the pool aboard ship, and so on. Some are with family, some are just my niece, some are just my nephew, some are the kids together. All the pictures were taken (and sent) by my sister.

What you are implying is that if I look at a picture of my niece in a bikini, I’m a creep. Even if she’s standing right next to my sister.

I guess that I’m having trouble with the breadth of your definitions. If the photos themselves are legal, then it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter how they are delivered. A legal photo does not automatically morph into an illegal photo because it’s on a website.

What would you prosecute the guys for? Looking at legal photographs?

cazzie's avatar

@elbanditoroso no no no…. I guess you didn’t see what is described as a ‘Bobbie Model’ photo. These girls are posed in very sexually explicit ways. There is no doubt what the photographer intended.

I have super cute photos of my kid in the tub. He’s just a kid in the tub. Nothing is showing. But if I put leather chaps on him and he had his finger in his mouth and he was looking down the lens in a ‘come hither’ way and I posted THAT picture and then promised ‘more and better pictures’ if you paid a fee, you would be given access to them… THAT is what I’m talking about.

kritiper's avatar

Yes, the road of honesty can be a bumpy one, but it is always the right one. And some people will always believe what they want despite what the truth is and nothing can be done about that.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@elbanditoroso legality – the girls are covered – this is not nudity.
The legality of the photos are not in question, as they are legally above the threshold of kiddie porn.

First, there we live in a capitalistic market economy, and if they’re making $35K a month, then (a) there is a willing market for this stuff and (b) the girls (and parents/agents) are making a good salary.
Because it is a huge potential money maker are you saying you are OK with this niche industry? Would you let your daughter do it if you had one that age?

You can choose to be outraged by anything you want, @Hypocrisy_Central – it’s a free country. I don’t share this one.
I am not outraged; it isn’t my people doing it. It is just curious especially with the past attitudes about people with pedophilia that has been made on this site, I have read on many threads over the years, that this niche industry seem to cater right up their alley and some as you seem to be saying, it is all good business? Of course even if you truly thought about it, you could not disagree with it because if I disagree with it, you have to go the opposite way.

– agreed. In addition to looking at the photographer, I would also want to know – where are the parents?
—Were you not just saying First, there we live in a capitalistic market economy, and if they’re making $35K a month, then (a) there is a willing market for this stuff and (b) the girls (and parents/agents) are making a good salary. It’s legal commerce. There are lots of things that I disapprove of that are bought and sold every day – guns, for example. But we live in a pluralistic capital society., why worry about the parents if it is such a lucrative, good, legal business?

@chyna What I wonder about @hypocracy central is why, as a Christian, you are looking at these pictures?
There are many images your media puts out there that are floated out there I have no control over. As I said, I expected to read an article dealing with modesty and the article spent all the time talking about Miley Cyrus, her twerking, causing some guy to rape a woman, etc. and there were images I had no control of with the text. Some of this pics where of girls that clearly were not women but posed like them and in ways dressed like them. To me they did not add to the story being read. When one sees a Web address tagged on a photo it usually means there’s a Web site and not just some Photobucket, or Instagram pic. I Googled it to see if there was actually a site ran by someone utilizing the images of the girl whose pic was part of the article. Just because there is a Google link doesn’t mean there is an active Web site behind it, it could have been an open domain, clicking it was the only way to see if it was active and the splash page showed you enough to know what was waiting for you if you whipped out your credit card and joined.

@cazzie Do you know the difference between a young girl being exploited, a young girl being sexualised as opposed to a young girl who feels confident enough in herself she can wear a tank top without feeling self-conscious?
To me, if she were doing it herself, taking lingerie selfies and posting them to Instragram, Twitter, or Facebook etc. it is a girl feeling confident to display herself like that. If there is a for-pay Web site, she might still feel confident, but how much of the take she is getting would determine if she is being made merchandise of. If the Web site is specifically aimed at a certain segment of the populace, then she might be sexualized. Even though sexualization in actuality might reside in the minds of those viewing, but how she is photographed can lead one there easier than if she were in a couture gown.

The photographer who is taking the pictures of the girls provocatively posed is the one to be taking a long hard look at.
Yeah, they are a part of the equation, but they cannot do squat if some parent or guardian doesn’t bring the child to the studio or photo shoot and sign a model release. If you had a preteen daughter and some guy in the neighborhood plied her with a bikini and a wading pool and started popping flicks while having her writhe around or pose in pinup poses, what would you think? If he said ”Madam, I am going to make her X amount of money on the Internet, she can pay her way through college”, that will change your mind?

cazzie's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central damn right I’d mind, if she were under 18.
‘Modesty’ and self respect doesn’t come in the form of a long sleeve shirt. It is about how one conducts ones self. And it IS about the adults. These children are being exploited by the adults. Even if they excitedly pose, they can not consent to this because they are minors. It is child abuse.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@cazzie It is child abuse.
IYO better, worse, or the same as a swim coach, gymnastic instructor, neighborhood friend, etc. dupes them into bed and out of their clothes with a promise of a dream vacation, or getting them to State and making them a champion?

If it is abuse, apparently a legal and profitable way to do it.

cazzie's avatar

You don’t think it’s abuse?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@cazzie You don’t think it’s abuse?
Here is what I believe and how I have come to it, if the girl knows what is going on, that her body is the commodity and it is explained to her that it is, and she still wants to participate, and profit from it, no token to appease her, and enough money is put away for her to go to school, start another business, or get a head start in life, I say no abuse even though it is not ethical. If she is not told anything but lead to the shoot, told to ”lift your leg, higher honey, now arch your back, stich your butt up more” and not told how much money she is making for others or coerced, bribed, or bamboozled into it, it crosses the line to abuse because she doesn’t want to be there. It doesn’t all fall on the girls, the parents should know what images of their girls is floating out there and the fact nothing ever dies on the Internet, so those photos will still be around somewhere even when they set a wedding date or have kids of their own. If the parents knowingly have understanding of how those photos are used and their de facto audience, then they are no better than pimps, and certainly no better than the man clicking on his mouse drooling over their girl’s photos; he is wired that way, they choose to feed it or ignore that eventuality is out there. Girls are girls, and society teaches them that look and sexual attraction can take you far. They see Li’l Kim and Miley Cyrus making bank of showing skin as Madonna before them. It is a far cry from a bra panty selfie on Instagram from a slick production with paid members. If she is a willing participant is she exploited? That is something I am still praying on and working out. There are real victims, and then there are those who are made victims because people feel they are victims. If the girl doesn’t feel like a victim and she is getting an adequate slice of the pie her look is producing, at this point I don’t know if I can scream you are a victim, even when what she does today might bite her in the arse tomorrow. It is unethical all the way, I have no doubt about that. These girls will grow up, unless they are very strong, in believing the only reason anyone will have interest in them is because they have nice body parts. They may even grow to believe that is their identity and apart from that they can’t be anything. Sure, today it is all legal, but many other unethical things are. It is interesting how society can be hypocritical on how they view the end-user or customer to such sites but have no opinion or no harsh words to the photogs, Webmaster, and parents producing the stuff, when there can really be only one qualified customer base for the sites.

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central apparently believes that “informed consent” is possible for children that are 14 or so, if given the total info.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ If you can read minds can you predict the lotto too, i could use a few extra mils.

cazzie's avatar

I’m still trying to work out what colour the sky is in @Hypocrisy_Central ‘s world.

Many girls grow up, regardless, thinking that their only commodity is their looks and value to men. It is a phenomenon as old as the hills. Nothing new. Nothing Miley Cyrus invented or pop culture. Educating women is still considered a waste of time in many fundamental cultures. Just look at the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner and her struggle. Strict Hindu families in India may educate their women when they can afford it, but what is most important is that she marry well and is beautiful. Just ask one of our recent Jellies.

Trading on sexuality and sex appeal is the world’s oldest profession for women. It was the only profession available. It has nothing to do with new moral standards in society, but the oldest of human desires. Women were property in paternalistic cultures. Their looks and virtue were the only things considered about them. We couldn’t vote or own property or go to University until very recent history. Any of this ringing any bells, @Hypocrisy_Central ?

cazzie's avatar

And YES, they ARE victims even if they think it is fun. They are underage and can not legally consent. You know what statutory rape is? Even if the young girl (or boy) thinks they’re in love and they have some sort of relationship, there are certain actions a child… I repeat, CHILD is not responsible for. It is the adults in the situation who are held responsible, not the child. These girls (and boys) are still learning about their own sexuality and what it means. They are desperately in need of feeling valued and wanted and when their self awareness and self esteem is low, they become even more desperate and there are adults who prey on it and it is a form of child abuse.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@cazzie And YES, they ARE victims even if they think it is fun. They are underage and can not legally consent.
Because of legality or politics, that is what makes them a victim even if they were willing participants, mind you it is legal, for them to do, they just need an adult signature because of legality; as they would with other things in which they have all their clothes on. The thing with pointing out someone and making them a victim, is like Affirmative Action (closest thing I can think of right now), with AA it seeks to make me a victim simply because of what nationality or race I was born. AA tells an employer he/she has to consider me or another African American simply because some or many in the past were victimized by Jim Crow. They are basically telling me you can’t get a good job no matter how skilled you are, because I was born African American I can accept that and believe I can’t prevail on my own skill without the feds and AA helping me out, because I will be discriminated on. If I believe there are some doors that would be closed because of my skin color, not all will, some will see me as either the guy who has the skills, or not. The only reason I would be a victim is because the government says I am a victim and thus they need to swoop in and save me. To put a blanket over every girl that does it without considering if she knows and is willing to go along with it (_and it has to be with her parent’s blessing, because, as you say, she can’t enter into a contract by herself—) I have to examine the legal, actual, psychological facts that might go with her (_and her parent(s)) decision.

Even if the young girl (or boy) thinks they’re in love and they have some sort of relationship, there are certain actions a child… I repeat, CHILD is not responsible for.
This is not about any relationship, it is about making money, charging for access to their image. I doubt they even know 1% of ½% of those clicking the mouse and entering their credit card data.

It is the adults in the situation who are held responsible, not the child. These girls (and boys) are still learning about their own sexuality and what it means.
Then who is more culpable, the end user who is not or cannot produce the entertainment, of the parents, Webmasters, and photographers that make it possible for the end user to enjoy because they are the ones who actually have access to the minor? Seeing they (the aforementioned group) has the access to the minor, by their actions are they not telling them, you are more noticed, valuable, productive, etc. in front of the camera in your underwear because no one would notice you if you weren’t? The hard truth, either they are getting the young charges advance at warp speed, or they don’t care so long as people keep swiping the credit card at each new posting, album, video, etc.

They are desperately in need of feeling valued and wanted and when their self awareness and self esteem is low, they become even more desperate and there are adults who prey on it and it is a form of child abuse.
I am sure some cases cross that line blatantly, but as it has been said by some in this thread:
• The girls are covered, they are not naked or semi-nude.
• If it is good for society or not is irrelevant.
• This is a capitalistic society so any legal endeavor that makes money, even a boatload, is the way it is.
• That there is a willing market for it, so basically supply and demand, they are fulfilling the demand.

To some it is not abuse, again, it is legal and the girls are covered up. I guess tack on the fact that the Website set up for them can be raking in tens of thousands of dollars a month, she is creating jobs and making everyone a lot of money. As liberal as Fluther is, it seems the Right, is pretty apathetic or ambivalent to it as well.

keobooks's avatar

Those Bobbie model pics were so awful. I only looked for a second and I didn’t let my daughter see them. I never thought a clothed picture could be so obscene.

cazzie's avatar

@keobooks exactly. but I’m sure @Hypocrisy_Central is now a happy and guilt-free member of several sites.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@cazzie @keobooks exactly. but I’m sure @Hypocrisy_Central is now a happy and guilt-free member of several sites.
Right, i am here in avid support of it….what was said in this thread already? Oh I know, “You can choose to be outraged by anything you want, @Hypocrisy_Central – it’s a free country. I don’t share this one.”, so i guess someone doesn’t know I was supporting it as you say, or maybe you got it wrong.

I don’t waste my money online, not for games, iTunes, streaming movies, lotto, etc. the only thing that gets me to purchase anything online is bike parts and computer gear off Amazon. But keep trying though.

cazzie's avatar

I just think you are wrong with your, ‘It can’t be exploitation if she’s making money from it herself’ defense.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ I just think you are wrong with your, ‘It can’t be exploitation if she’s making money from it herself’ defense.
Defense? I am not the producer of any of that content. In my mind IO can say it is exploitive, but that could be merely because I believe it to be unethical, my faith even attest to that. However, if someone knowingly takes what seems to be the lesser position, can I truly call them a victim, even if what they are doing is legal and they can be exploited in it. Everyday many people have to make that hard choice in what they do as to if they are exploited or not. It is not a hard line in the sand. Workers who are force to work on Thanksgiving at the behalf of businesses or shops that only care about maximizing the bottom line and want as many Black Friday dollars as possible. If the worker who would rather not work that day but would get fired if they didn’t, one could say is exploited because they need the job to pay bills, and such. The fact they know this, and get up and go to work on Thanksgiving willingly, even though the consequence of not going is no job (which is a choice they can make, however inconvenient) are they true victims?

If the girl understands the Web site is for making money, it will not get her to the runways of Fashion Week, Ford Models are not going to come calling, long after she stops (if she does so before she age-out) those images will be out there and can taint how she is perceived and what horny boys might think when she get into high school, if she knows all of that and still wants to do it, and as long as she legally can, I don’t know if she is a victim outside my disapproval. If I were a relative and wanted to sue on behalf of the girl, I can hardly find an argument that would fly in court.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther