Altering young girls - how far could it go?

1 post / 0 new
hennakatrin
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
admin
Joined: 2010-05-01 18:01
Altering young girls - how far could it go?

There have been many traditions in different cultures where young girls have put in a place of goddess, honored and kept in temples and they stay with that role up to their first menstruation. Then the new goddess will be found.

In modern Western world we don't have this tradition and I can't recall anything like that from history. (Which does not mean it might not have beem existed maybe I just don't know.)
Nowadays we have actually rather big problem with pedophilia. It does not mean traditional cultures that are urbanized wouldn't have this problem-  think about sex-paradises of Thai for example...
We live in highly oversexualized worl and we have been sold most of things stressing out it's/their/our sexual nature. Starting from fashion and luxury-goods and ending up wtith bycycles and milk.
And then we have pageant competitions for babies already...
And then we fight against child-porn.
Haven't you thought how hypocritical this is?

However - what thoughts and emotions come to you reading this and seeing these pictures:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2022305/Thylane-Lena-Rose-Blondeau-Shocking-images-10-YEAR-OLD-Vogue-model.html

I think we live in a really sick world when so-called leading fashion magazine starts to expose children as sluts. It has been bad enough about 20 years ago when 14-15yo did Gymnastics in Olympic Games as a women's team. It has been bad enough when skinny 16yo pose in a magazines selling clothes for rich and obviously at least 10 years older people than they are, usually even for 20-30 years older. And we take it as a norm.
This is deeply my personal opinion but I don't see any good-style high-fashion sexuality in these photos. I see abused child. I see young girl in a f**k-me pose.
And that makes me sick.

(Just as a note - have you thought why pedophile has become a synonyme to a person who is sexually obsessed by children while it means actually 'someone who loves children' without any sexual hint. Philosophe is not somebody who is sexually obsessed by wisdom and truth but someone who loves the truth. So why this is so why pedophile? Wouldn't it be more accurate to name them pedomaniacs? As their obsession is a mania by nature?)