A complaint

[Beth]

In this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=27690#post27690), Dave A. posted an attachment of a little girl's face, plus a URL to the site that he found it at. I find his comments on this girl very disturbing and sexualized. To me, this is uncalled for and reeks od pedophilia. Since her parents have no Idea that this thread exists with their daughter's pic and the sexual comments made about her, I would request that either:
(1).This thread be deleted,
(2). The Image and URL to this this pic be removed and the discussion remains open,
(3). If there is an email associated to this URL, her parents be made aware of the existence of this thread and their minor daughter's image being used.

[livius drusus]

I appreciate your concern, Beth, but from what I can see, there is nothing in dave's OP or anywhere else in the thread that violates the rules of this site. Therefore options 1 and 2 seem out of bounds right now unless you're suggesting that the attachment/URL is illegal under US law.

I agree that the discussion is disturbing and I would hope that dave would make an effort to speak with respectful consideration both of the child herself and of the participants in the thread, but we can't force him to tread carefully or delete the things he says unless they violate the rules.

Regarding your third suggestion, I have checked on the site and was not able to find any contact information for the posters. Even if I could, however, I don't think it's in line with any administrative policies and just generally speaking, I don't see how any positive result could ensue from telling parents that an innocent image they posted is being used as an example in a metadiscussion about child sexuality.

I will state for the record that I don't believe dave's comments "reek of pedophilia" - quite the opposite, in fact - although I do find that his most recent posts have been insensitive and personally distasteful to me.

[Beth]

I understand, but I do think his comments most recent from when I last posted did have a pedophiliac nature. He began to objectify and sexualize the five year old child and then justified this by blaming the parents for posting a very innocent picture for his initial reaction to this child.

I am not accusing him of being a pedophile, but I do believe many of his comments were pedophiliac.

[livius drusus]

I understand what you mean, Beth. It was definitely a thought I'd had as well: that many children are told by their molesters that it was something about them - their sensuality or beauty or "flirtateousness" - that drove the molester to abuse them. dave's search for the explation of his finding a child's picture sexy skirted that vibe with some of his comments.

I think that's being addressed in the thread now, however, so hopefully it will resolve naturally.

[LadyShea]

I think he was simply trying to work out confusing and icky feelings, and making it about the picture or parents is part of that processing. I for one was glad to see it aired in the open and worked out.

[dave_a]

I think he was simply trying to work out confusing and icky feelings, and making it about the picture or parents is part of that processing. I for one was glad to see it aired in the open and worked out.


I agree with this.

I am not a pedo, and I stated previously in the thread that I absolutely do not take an "if she gets raped it's her fault" attitude. Such things are foreign to my thinking and I can't believe I am even defending myself against such nonsense.

Upon first seeing the pic it was my perception that she was made up. That perception appears likely to be wrong. So I made a mistake.

If you can't handle the discussion, stay away from it Beth. I really don't appreciate your repeated accusations despite my explaining myself in thread several times.

I have apologized for choosing some words poorly, I have stated as plainly as I can that I don't mean this girl or her parents any disrespect despite my initial reactions to this picture being along the lines of 'as a parent I couldn't see allowing my 5 year old girl to do her hair and makeup like that.' As I stated, it was an initial reaction and one I no longer hold given time to process this further.

What more can I do? I feel I have given your out of control response enough of my time.

[livius drusus]

Beth didn't accuse you of being a pedophile; she simply found your comments about the child's appearance and your references to her parents offensive because they shared some commonalities with the kinds of justifications child molesters use. That's not calling you a pedophile nor is it calling you a "she was asking for it" rapist. It's calling you out on some extremely poor word choice.

From what you've said on the thread, you now agree that the word choice was extremely poor. You didn't yesterday, remember. Yesterday you had no idea why anyone would be offended by the things you said.

Beth knows you're not a pedophile, has clarified that she did not mean to imply you were when she described your comments as pedo-like. She has corrected her own poor word choice, iow.

So this is progress. It doesn't have to be a fight. A short walk in each other's shoes and I think we can breach the communication gap here.