Self-Actualized Three Year Old Is An Exploited Prop

(Note: Parts of this post are graphic and may create triggers.)

We don’t pull our punches here.

Did you see it? Just weeks after the dancing little girls’ sexy viral routine to “Put A Ring On It”, we’ve got a new video to talk about: Baby Gaga.

Why am I so very, very white hot mad about this one? The “Put A Ring On It” 8yo video was a homemade movie put on YouTube for friends and family. I truly believe that. I believe the dance routine and costumes were raunch and completely inappropriate for talented young girls and that their parents are naive, but I truly do believe they did not intend for it to go viral. They were just very proud of their girls.

Baby Gaga is different. Baby Gaga was scripted and professionally shot and edited and fully intended to go viral. And although the video is offensive and exploitative, it isn’t illegal in terms of child pornography. Because of my former career in criminal investigations, I have viewed a lot of child pornography. And Baby Gaga REEKS OF IT.

IT BLURS THE LINE OF TABOO. Handcuffs. Gyrating. Costumes. Mocked drug use. Vacant look on child during forced performance. REEKS OF IT.

Jake Wilson wants to be famous. Really badly. Jake Wilson (www.thebatterysdown.com, @jakewil) directed a little three year old girl named Keira in a “spoof” of Lady Gaga’s song “Telephone” and it went viral in three days. All the while Pigtail Pals was tweeting and posting about it to raise a GIANT red flag and asking people to flag the video on YouTube and have it taken down. I started hollering about it on June 4, when it had around 64,000 views (Thanks @kklausser for the good looking out). By June 8th it was viral and Jake Wilson and Little Keira’s mom Heidi Ladrow sat on the couches of CBS’s The Early show looking confused and uncomfortable as psychotherapist Heide Banks explained the long term effects and why maybe this wasn’t such a great idea. Jake Wilson did take the video down from his account around 9:15am EST on June 8th, probably as he was walking out of the CBS studios…but not after using media tags and promotion from his twitter account to make sure thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of people saw it.

Here’s what I saw: A sexualized and disturbing forced performance done by a very small child wearing handcuffs, sexually provocative clothing and heavy make-up. Images of the small child simulating drug use with a pipe and bottle in a bathtub, along with a dance troop of scantily clad women, and a bar scene finish out the video. I didn’t see a happy child. I saw a child who seemed annoyed, uncomfortable, and seriously confused be used as an exploited prop so that Jake Wilson could make a name for himself.

Did you see the completely redonkulous interview given by the child’s mother and Jake Wilson on the CBS Early Show? Here’s the clip.

In the interview, Maggie Rodriguez treats Little Keira’s mommy with kid gloves, asking how the video came about. Keira’s mom gave a scripted answer that the video was a result of Keira’s “energetic and playful personality”. She states the child has known the director since she was an infant, and felt very comfortable with him. Heidi Ladrow (Keira’s mom) says, “It was perfect because she is so animated.” That’s not what I saw in the video, did you? Well, I guess Maggie didn’t see it either because then she delicately asks Jake that it didn’t seem like Keira was enjoying it, so she asks what it was like on the shoot. He says, “Every child likes to play dress up, that is kind of the joy of being a kid.” Except that the kind of “dress up” Keira was forced to do is nothing that would come naturally to a child. Sexualization took place during the making of this video.

Heidi Ladrow and Jake Wilson claim to CBS’s Maggie Rodriquez that the video only took three hours to make and that it was made for family and friends (I call shenanigans). It was from the START intended to go viral. There is NO WAY that video was professionally shot in just three hours. The make-up and costume changes with a three year old would have taken that long alone. The amount of editing in final production makes it pretty obvious that was a long day of shooting. Hey Jake, just wondering, what is New York state’s law on child performers and the number of consecutive hours children under 6 years old can work? To contradict the claim it was made “for family and friends and we didn’t expect it to get this big”…..

all one has to do is hop over to Jake’s twitter feed on June 3rd: “my new video – “Baby Gaga!” please RT/rate/comment and let’s get this thing to go VIRAL! http://tinyurl.com/BabyGagaTelephone“.

From June 4-8th where he several times over promotes the video and congratulates himself when Ryan Seacrest retweets it, when it hits the Huffington Post, AOL, ABC News, CNN, E! News, etc…

And of this morning, June 11, he is STILL promoting his #BabyGaga video: “wait, so if Jason Stackhouse is on the cover of Ent. Weekly, he must have seen #BabyGaga, right? which means he MUST want 2 meet me!”

Then we get to the good part where Heidi Ladrow says it was all okay because her three year old is self-actualized and you really can’t make a three year old do anything…..

And here’s where we’re going to stop and I’m going to get angry. First, let’s just get out of the way that considering “self-actualization” sits at the tip top of Maslow’s heirarchy of needs and is achieved only at the highest level of psychological development, I find it highly unlikely anyone’s child has climbed that high in three years of life. I’ve gotta be honest here, I think that not even the Dalai Lama himself was self-actualized at three years old. Second, if Keira’s mom meant to say “self-confident” (which I could go for at three years old) then what she and Jake did is all the worse because early sexualization breaks down and destroys a young girls’ self-confidence.

I am SO VERY ANGRY because what Jake and Heidi did with Little Keira, ignorance not withstanding, is prematurely sexualize her. I heard from many, many people who were completley disgusted by the video. As well they should be. But you know who wasn’t disgusted? The people who partake in the $3 billion annual trade of child pornography and child sexploitation. The people who abuse children over and over and over again, and get huge amounts of pleasure while doing it. The people, who thanks to Jake and Heidi, don’t have to work very hard to have the predilections and fantasies of having sex with children satisfied. Jake saw this as a way to get famous. But there are thousands of men, like this one, and these guys, who saw it as condonement for their viewing children as sexual objects for molestation and rape. Baby Gaga told the people who look at children in this way that this mainstream thinking, that it is okay. And horrifically, it tells these men that the children want it. This is the danger of blurring the line of taboo.

“Viewing the material does motivate you to do other things … the more I saw it, the more I long for it in my heart. I really wanted to have sex with a child and that was all-consuming.” – comments on online child pornography by Michael Briere, serving a life term for the abduction, sex assault and murder of 10-year-old Holly Jones in Toronto. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/06/05/14278636.html?cid=rssnewslast24hours

There are not child predators lurking around every street corner. Unless you are online. Feeding that industry in any way in unconscionable. Unconscionable. I don’t think that was Heidi’s or Jake’s intent. But they’ve done nothing to stop it. He’s still promoting it. And I cry foul.

Children have the right to be children. They have the right to play dress up and explore through role play. Using a child in a sexualized spoof of Lady Gaga does not protect this right. It degrades it. It desensitizes the public to become apathetic towards ideas of children and sex. And for those who have fetishes and fantasies about touching, molesting, raping, and torturing children….it tells them they that possibly they aren’t the perverse derelicts of society that they are. After all, the child’s own mother placed her in this video and defended the video on national tv as something that had to be outrageous, and that was okay because her daughter has a spunky personality.

There is no defense of the sexualization and exploitation of children.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If you feel  you have come across child pornography online, please report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Cyber Tipline.

If you think you have seen a Missing Child, please report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 24-hour Call Center.

Any possesion, in any media form, of child pornography is illegal. If you know someone in possession of this, report to you local Police Department of Sheriff’s Office.

If you feel you or someone you know has been a victim in the making of child pornography, report to the FBI’s Innocent Images National Initiative.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

This post was composed in honor of the memory of Dylan Groene.

Rest peacefully, Sweet Boy.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-


Comments

  1. Wow. I could feel the steam of anger in this post. I also feel it is justified. I am one who often has mixed reviews of such topics (especially the Put a Ring on it Video) – but after I saw the interview with the mom with clips of the video (i did NOT see the whole video first because I was too disturbed by the mere thought of a 3 year old doing something like this. The mother is completely “redonkulous”!!!! It did NOT appear the child was having fun, a good time, and the mom seems completely in denial or something else. I found the interview odd!! How could she say it wasnt intended to go viral when it was a huge production? It wasnt a home video. And the girls/women dancing behind the baby disturbed me the most. When the mom said something about “she had just woken up from her nap – we WANTED her to look upset at time). WHAT?????? I do not understand the motivations, the intentions of this mother. I also saw from the interview she also did not know her motivations and intentions. That is pretty scary. I am all for dress up, play, but a huge production, propped, and placed child is inappropriate. It would be inappropriate if it was a child appropriate video I feel because 3 hours is too long for a child to work for AN ADULT! It wasnt as if the child decided to get dressed up, dance around the house for a bit and they caught it on the video. This was 1) an inappropriate video for the age of the child and 2) a staged production with a child too young to be able to verbalize her unhappiness in doing ANY KIND of production. The therapist was right – this video is now out there for ALL time and we have no idea how it will affect her. Ick.
    .-= Kendra (Voice in Recovery)´s last blog ..A VERY thoughtful blog on Inside Rehab by Oprah (via @missmarymax). "Perhaps the most powerful experience in my own recovery has been the restoration of my “voice” — the right that I’ve claimed, to actively tell my story my way. This production steals that right — integral, in my experience, to sustaining recovery – from the patients in this facility. It edits their experience to create a story that does not serve them, or — necessarily – its viewers. It serves, first and foremost, the pocketbooks of those producing it." =-.

  2. I never caught on that this was going around. Thank goodness because I probably would’ve checked to see what the fuss was about and then not been able to get that garbage out of my head. This makes me sick. How completely selfish of those stupid parents. That child may not understand what is happening right now but she will when she gets older and sees that. Jeepers! Children are not puppets or circus animals people. The purpose of parents is to be there to protect them, not lead them into harm’s way.
    .-= Melodie´s last blog ..Vegetarian Foodie Fridays: Cabbage and Beans Au Gratin =-.

  3. Heretofore I had not watched the video. I decided to watch it was horrified that any mother would willing put her child into such situations. It comes down to money and fame and, yes, adults clamoring for it by stepping on that little girl’s back.

    Seeing her laying on a bed with handcuffs on her wrists and draped across her body could be an image straight from the hardest core child pornography. Sitting there on the American flag with scantily clad women gyrating behind her turns her into a sacrifice on the altar of consumerism, only she’s what the audience is given to partake in. The last scene, her eyes closed and her face so sad as she lays in a bathtub, could be the photo taken at any crime scene where a child has been killed.

    I just don’t get it. Why did it go viral? Who watched that and didn’t get a nasty feeling in their guts? Who watched it and didn’t see a tragedy?

    I’m so glad you’re calling attention to why it’s wrong. I am shocked and disappointed that so many others need it pointed out to them.
    .-= Kelly´s last blog ..The Return =-.

  4. Also meant to say that the opening seconds where we get shots of her body parts is classic objectification. She is not a collection of body parts!
    .-= Kelly´s last blog ..The Return =-.

  5. ohmygawd melissa. i am without words.

  6. Hello Melissa,

    Before I begin I would just like to say that I respect your opinion–the 1st Amendment is one of the remaining beauties of this country. That being said, I just had to respond to this blog entry.

    I have worked in birth/parent education for a few years now. I take great pride in the fact that I help new parents prepare themselves for new additions to their families, and help them make informed choices regarding various issues they will face both prenatally and postpartum.

    Jake Wilson is also a friend of mine.

    Over the past few days I have seen people drag his name through the mud without even contacting him or knowing him personally. Aside from being an actor/director, Jake is a very well-respected and loved baby sitter in this city and has nannied here and in LA. His love for children is actually something to be admired–I know this because I see “caregivers” neglecting children ALL THE TIME. This video might be a little “edgy” for some people, but it was made to be an entertaining piece of camp–that is all. Yes, he wanted it to go viral. Yes, he talked about when Ryan sent out a tweet and when it was on E and CNN and various other networks—I WOULD DO THE SAME THING. As an artist, when your work is recognized it is very fulfilling. Even though this recognition became a witchhunt.

    Handcuffs? Really? Anyone who views this as some kind of S&M or reference to child pornography clearly misses the point that it is just lampooning Lady Gaga and her campy fashion choices.

    Above, Kellly states that “Sitting there on the American flag with scantily clad women gyrating behind her turns her into a sacrifice on the altar of consumerism.” Seriously? Are you REALLY going Noam Chomsky on this video? It was a bunch of friends making a video with a little girl that they thought would get a few hits on the internet. This was not intended, nor should it ever be intended, as political commentary. That’s absurd.

    And as for your recent tweet: “Ah, when morality is lost behind faulty legalese and a lack of ethics.” Who are you to imply YOUR morals on others? If people kept implying their morals on people, we’d undoubtedly be taken back to the time before women had the right to choose and African-Americans had to use different entrances.

    As for Jake being “fame-hungry” or something, do you not think that, by talking about him and hash-tagging #babygaga non-stop today that you are NOT drumming up business for your T-Shirt company?

    Now I am just getting snarky, and I honestly didn’t intend for that so I will stop–I blame it on lack of coffee combined with friends under attack.

    Again, I can understand why YOU are upset, but just think before you criticize other people you do not know and the motives behind what they do.

    ANYONE who reads this can feel free to email me….

    • Hi Jamie –
      Thanks for the comment, and I don’t think you were being snarky. I play fair and I have no problem with you questioning me or my intentions. What really surprised me about this video is that it is so vastly different from the rest of Jake’s work. He IS so talented and funny, but this took a detour. A very bad detour. I do not at all question the quality of person Jake is as a whole. Before this video I would have said he seems like a good guy, more or less. I’m sure he appreciates good friends like you who stand up for him. I can tell he is fond of children and enjoys caring for them. That’s awesome. I think this was a VERY misguided project.

      This video is far from awesome, and it is far from art. And he lied on national tv when he said they never meant for it to get this big. His twitter stream is a direct contradiction of that statement. I’m sure he was excited a project of his was getting so much attention. You’re right, who wouldn’t? But at what cost? That’s where I come in. The cost – the cost of young children being sexualized and objectified. That’s the business I’m in, and it doesn’t have much to do with my t-shirts (of which, you’ll notice, I’ve not promoted at all on twitter or facebook today).

      You’ll get no argument from me that the rest of Jake’s work is creative and artful. That all stops at this video. It wasn’t funny. The “campiness” look they were going for didn’t come through. It disgusted many, many people. I actually had tried to contact Jake, but got no response. When I saw he was still using the #babygaga tag today, I used it hoping to catch his attention. Not trying to sell shirts with that one. In fact, you’ll notice that unless it is a specific post, my shirts are not advertised on this blog and most of the content is dedicated to media literacy.

      For the record, I made no comment about the flag being used, so I’m not really going to address that point. I stand by what I wrote regarding sexualization, objectification, and the detriments of child pornography. I’m willing to continue to respectfully dialog about this with you and with Jake. But at this point we will agree to disagree. The video was inappropriate, offensive, and a bad decision overall. It could have been done many other ways.

      Hope you get to enjoy a few cups of coffee this afternoon (I’m on my 5th), and maybe during a quiet moment this weekend you can read more into the links provided in the post and see if we can’t come back to the table and talk some more.

      Thanks Jamie :)
      Melissa

  7. Bravo, mama, bravo.
    I knew after seeing the interview that Baby Gaga’s mom looked uncomfortable. And know I think it’s safe to say somewhere along there her gut was telling her she had made a mistake and she’s too proud to break down in public and apologize.
    Shame on her.
    The best thing she can do is publicly apologize to her daughter, her family and make a public service announcement to other parents.
    .-= Andrea Owen´s last blog ..Save New Moon Girls! =-.

  8. This is such a well constructed and thought out post on something that is exploitative and wretched on behalf of all concerned. Well done for articulating all that is wrong about this in such a great way. I can only hope the Mother of the child reads it.

  9. Thanks Andrea, for the link to this post by Melissa. And thank you Melissa for talking about it. Hadn’t seen the vid till now and as I watched I just wanted to cry when I saw the little girl’s face – that is NOT the face of a happy camper or a kid jumping around and having fun and don’t anyone even try to say it is.

    There’s nothing cute about this video. I’ve had my fair share of laughs at cutesy vids like “Charlie bit me” and little Jessica saying affirmations on the countertops – that was cute, this is not. Not, not, not!

    Why can’t we let kids be kids and not put them in situations like this? Why force them to grow up so soon? Makes my heart ache for the simple childhood most of us had growing up – most of us didn’t have our parents put us to work at age 3. Yes, I said WORK. This kid is WORKING. Not playing.

    And puh-LEASE, this was clearly not just “a bunch of friends making a video with a little girl that they thought would get a few hits on the internet”.

    At least be straight up and say you did your best to make this video go viral and that was your intention from the start – this was so not created for “friends and family”.

    Don’t insult our intelligence by trying to make us believe that. Hopefully the wee girl won’t be scarred from this experience and will forget about it soon. Moms, think twice – are you doing it for your kid or for YOU?

    Tia @TiaSparkles
    .-= Tia Singh´s last blog ..Lessons from the Blackhawks Stanley Cup Win =-.

  10. Well done Melissa, well written & researched. I totally agree. I saw this when it first came out & it was obvious to me what this was & what the makers intention was (ie self promotion). And you have been very generous in your comments regarding him. Keep up the good work & please know there are people out in the wide world who really appreciate your eforts.
    Thankyou.

  11. Why? Why? Why? We may find ourselves asking this as we view this video. The answer, I am convinced, is to fill somebody’s pocket. Plain and simple.

    As a mental health consultant to numerous early childhood programs (birth-5), primarily in the preschool-age group, and a staunch advocate for children’s rights, I must say that I knew only seconds into this video that it was wrong on many levels.

    While it is true that children of this age are typically very imaginative and playful and love to play dress-up, I must say that I have never seen these types of outfits willingly chosen by a young child. The scenes, the poses, the situations…all unnatural to a child. Clearly, creative license was taken…but at what cost? Creative license is one thing. Creative license with a child who has no conceptual understanding of what is happening to her and around her is quite another.

    Putting children in situations like this can be very harmful…and we are right to stand up and take notice.

    My heart sank as I watched that little girl’s face throughout the video. The image of her sadness is engraved in my mind. It is captured on video for all the world to see. Nowhere in the video do I see spontaneous joy, light-heartedness or genuine smiles. I see nothing that looks natural or cute or funny or fun. I don’t think it takes a trained clinician or early childhood specialist to see this.

    The interesting thing is that I compared this to Lady GaGa’s video of the same song, and this rendition is NOTHING like it. There are no acts of bondage, no crazy costumes, no garish make-up and no actors/actresses/dancers that look as if they are being forced to do something they have no desire to do…or have little understanding of the context or meaning behind what is going on…and for me, this is key. The little girl looks clueless and scared and totally out of place while the scantily-clad women gyrate behind her and when one simulates drinking out of the baby bottle up close and personal to the little girl.

    There is symbolism and suggestion throughout this video. To say there is not would be to be in collude in an unhealthy denial. It smacks of exploitation at every turn. There are things I observed on this video that I won’t even comment on. Why shine a light on more crassness?

    I respond to this not to berate or pass judgment on the parents or the director of this film.…but to impress upon ALL parents the importance of safeguarding our children’s innocence, giving our children a chance at childhood…and taking a stand on anything that threatens those most basic rights and their basic safety…physical and psychological.

    I think you would be hard pressed to find a childhood mental health advocate, professional or parent who has the best interests of children at heart saying that doing something like this is a good idea. It is NOT.

    This is not the first incident of parents exploiting their children to try to promote something that they have on their own agenda (which usually includes some type of financial gain, success or media attention). While I am not comparing the two situations in any way, the case of the Balloon Boy http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/15/colorado.boy.balloon/index.html comes to mind. Both are examples of perhaps a parent’s desire to achieve some sort of gain by exploiting their children.

    Show me any parent and I‘ll show you someone who has made plenty of mistakes. Thankfully, most often they are not broadcast for all the world to see. Most parents are not under a microscope when they exercise poor judgment or make a bad decision. That is never an easy place to be, whether one feels that the parent asked for it or not.

    Removal of this video from the “airwaves” and refusing to profit from it in any way, shape or form would be one option in turning the tide.

  12. It strikes me that any defense of this seems to come from folks who aren’t parents. Outrage against this exploitation is not only from man-hating feminists. This is just plain wrong and indefensible. You can bring up the 1st Amendment and artistic license and you can even just say that your friend is a good guy (and I have no doubt he is) BUT regardless of those things, a 3 year old child does not have a say in this matter do they? That’s why it’s exploitative. A 3 year old can’t consent to getting dressed up like a whore and being videotaped so that someone can profit off it. Anything saying otherwise is complete nonsense and until you’re a parent, you aren’t able to completely empathize with that perspective.

    This is not about politics, feminism or man-bashing. This is about poor judgment and the continuing exploitation of children to get fame. I have no doubt that Mr. Grayson, who commented above, and Jake, are both good guys and good at what they do. However, emotions and friendships are getting in the way of understanding the repercussions of this. No one should have to apologize for raging against this and calling it what it is.
    .-= Chris (@tessasdad)´s last blog ..Guest post: Africa hosts the World Cup, FEEL IT. It is Here !!! =-.

  13. I just watched the interview. I had seen the video and it made me sick. I come across the video because the director had tweet about it to go viral and someone on my follow list RT’d it. So for them to say on the interview that they never meant for it to get as big and that it was for family and friends is pure bullshit!

    I flagged the video when i saw it. its pure explotation of a toddler!

  14. I’m a husband, father, and an artist. Defending exploitation of children as art under the umbrella of the 1st amendment devalues us all. There are simple truths in this world. Children do not reach the age of reason until they are at least 7. As others have mentioned, an adult encouraging a child to act out adult sexual behavior even in a simulated fashion will forever undermine that child’s ability to develop his or her concept of sexuality at a proper age. I wonder if Jake Wilson or the parents of these children took the time to consider the ramifications of their actions. I’m angry and deeply saddened by the failure of all involved in this project. They’ve needlessly harmed innocent children for fame’s sake.

    Vincent(@CuteMonsterDad)’s last posts:

    Apple iPhone 4 Father’s Day

    Romance in the Age of Parenthood

  15. Brigitte Fodell says:

    Though I haven’t read all posts I did watch the video. Having kids of my own I don’t think it’s appropriate for many reasons. Aside from all those I feel sad for the poor little girl who has to grow up having been the center of attention for something like this.

  16. I agree with you wholeheartedly but wish you would take off the link to the video in your post. Linking to the video seems to be contributing to the problem. That, and I wish I hadn’t seen the few seconds of it I did watch.

    • Hi Taylor –
      Thanks for your comment. I will tell you I struggled with this one, whether to link the video or not. Does it need to be up for a teaching tool or does linking it only contribute to the problem? I think the answer is yes to both questions. Ultimately I decided it needed to be done for people to really hear my words. They needed to be in a place of disgust for my words about exploitation and sexualization to resonate. I did post warnings about links having graphic content so as to warn my readers.

      This post is dedicated to the memory of little Dylan Groene, whose abduction and homicide I assisted in investigating. I felt, in the end, it would do his memory (and all those children who have gone before him) a disservice to treat this post lightly. This post was intended to hit people in the gut. The night I wrote it I got two hours of sleep, and I’ve felt pretty sick all weekend as the memories of his case creep out from the back of my mind.

      I do apologize if linking the video seemed insensitive, but I needed people to be completely informed when reading this post to truly understand what is at stake when our children are viewed as sexual objects. In the future, I will try to take more precautions to warn people that what they are about the view/read may be upsetting.

  17. A-freaking-MEN

  18. And I have absolutely no problem passing judgement on the parent of this child and every single adult involved in the production and marketing (YES, PURPOSEFUL MARKETING) of this video. SHAME SHAME SHAME on them. I hope that karma comes back and bites them in the ass in a big, fat way.

  19. i posted a pretty in-depth review of this response to the video, the video itself, & the Ms. piece about it, if anyone is interested in an alternative view point.

    http://howoddnichole.blogspot.com/2010/06/baby-gaga-ohlala.html

    • Nichole –
      I replied to your post as a commenter on your blog. If you’d like to know more about what I did as an investigator, I’d be happy to tell you. It does not involve partaking in child pornography, as you suggest in your blog post. It does involve investigating cases that included the rape of an infant girl and the weeks long torture, rape, sodomization, beating, disembowelment and eventual homicide of a young boy. Eat a light lunch, and let’s chat.

      Melissa

    • Wow, so I just came across this atrocity. I guess I missed all the hubbub last year. Anyway, after reading Nichole’s ridiculous blog post, I have to reply, even if it’s a year too late. I can’t seem to post it on her blog, so here goes:

      Nichole,

      I absolutely disagree with you. It does not, in the end, come down to our definition, legal or otherwise, of child pornography. The world is not divided into either “Acceptable” or “Child Porn.” This video would never be considered illegal (at least under the child porn statutes), but it is absolutely abusive and disgusting. You say that she is more covered up than the Coppertone girl, but that isn’t the point – a picture of a naked child isn’t necessarily pornography. This video portrays this little girl in sexually suggestive scenes, which is absolutely inappropriate.

      I have to ask, which part did you find “cute”? The 3 year old in heavy make-up dancing on a bar in front of liquor bottles? Lying on a bed in a black club costume with handcuffs? Do liquor and handcuffs seem appropriate parts of early childhood to you?

      You say that you are a feminist, radical, pro-sex, etc.; well, so am I. Heck, I shouted down my 1st Amendment law professor about women’s rights to participate in pornography. But adult choices are not relevant to this discussion – this is about a CHILD. You say that you have read studies that human beings are sexual from birth, but that does not mean that children should be posed by adults in sexually suggestive scenes. Children’s sexuality generally revolves around interest in and exploration of their own bodies – it does not include come-ons, flirting, or other forms of pursuit of a sexual partner. By placing this little girl in sexually suggestive clothes, props, and scenes, the makers of this piece of garbage have created a persona of adult sexuality around her that a three year old girl simply does not possess.

  20. “You can’t make a 3-year old do anything,” said the mother.

    Except worship whatever it is that her mother does.

    “There is no defense of the sexualization and exploitation of children.” THERE IS NO DEFENSE.

    Watching even a brief clip of this made me sick to my stomach. All I can think of all the budding pedophiles out there who might look at MY daughter like that after watching this video.

    Bad mother. SHAME ON YOU FOR EXPLOITING YOUR DAUGHTER.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dr. Robyn Silverman, Melissa Wardy, Melissa Wardy, Melissa Wardy, Melissa Wardy and others. Melissa Wardy said: New Blog Post that has my fingers shaking: "Self-Actualized 3 Year Old Is An Exploited Prop" http://bit.ly/c3gDMQ #sexualizaton #pornography [...]

  2. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wendy E. Young, Chris Singer. Chris Singer said: @yesmagazine I'm saying YES to no more exploitation of children – http://ow.ly/1XDqP @Kidlutions @PigtailPals [...]

  3. [...] been asking the ‘who what where when’ questions (alas, the ‘why’ is self-evident, from BabyGaga to daily drek [...]

  4. [...] of others. Bleh. Girls are not candies, or meat, or dolls, or boy toys or props or prostitots or BabyGaGas fercripesakes. Our pop culture has devolved and debased their right to childhood in all its [...]

Speak Your Mind

*