The Japanese make everything entertaining

[Trolldor]

Still, this is incredibly interesting to watch.

Thoughts or opinions? I'd give mine but I am FUCKING TIRED.

[Achtland]

oh my god

that is child exploitation even if they are not actually naked
the laws should change so this is never sold any where in the world

[AshtonBlack]

10???? You have got to be fuckin' kidding!

[Trolldor]

It doesn't suprise me that this is happening in Japan though.



Is that racist?
Yes.
No, because it's the truth!

[AshtonBlack]

Let's just hope the Gary Glitter gang don't get wind of this... yuck!

.... and the first person to mention relative morality gets a smack.

[Trolldor]

Let's just hope the Gary Glitter gang don't get wind of this... yuck!

.... and the first person to mention relative morality gets a smack.

Morality is only ever relative, but exploitation is not covered under 'opinion'.

[Har]

What's wrong with an hourglass figure? Aren't wide hips more attractive? I mean, sure, the kids are cute... but that's all. Or maybe that's it? It's the innocence, the "unspoiltness" which fascinates them so?

[FBM]

To paraphrase something I vaguely recall from Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, Listerine didn't invent mouthwash so much as they invented halitosis. This is capitalism run amok. They're creating/expanding their consumer base by such publications more than catering to a pre-existing market. Step one: Increase exposure to the concept. Step two: Make it OK. Step three: profit. They are motivated by economics, not by morals.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I have already made my thoughts on the age-of-consent clear - I think that once a child is sexually mature physically, they should be free to explore their sexuality with whoever they wish. But I think that anything that presents sexually immature children (of either gender) in a sexual context is tantamount to abuse.

IMO, the worst aspect of this is that it acts to legitimise paedophiliac impulses in man that are prone to them. Seeing blatantly sexual imagery involving pre-pubescent girls on open display and even considered 'normal' is bound to make those that wish to engage in sexual relations with such girls consider that to be 'normal' as well.

[Bella Fortuna]

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start.

"Some like older, some like younger, it all evens out."

What the fuck?!?

[ScholasticSpastic]

I don't find fault with any male experiencing a hormonal response to secondary sexual characteristics. I am concerned, however, that repeated exposure to such material in the context within which such exposure undoubtedly may occur will probably end up conditioning consumers' sexual responses in an unhealthy manner. I am also concerned that some of these girls are too young to actually have secondary sexual characteristics yet, and thus any arrousal response is already abnormal.

I would say, however, that this is not necessarily a 'moral' issue. Morality is should be about what we do to each other, not about what we think about each other. This trend only really becomes unethical when it results in harm to children. What constitutes harm to children is difficult to define. Is it harmful to prematurely sexualize girls? Doubtless. Is it harmful for girls to realize at an early age that they can have this effect on men? Probably not. I know quite a few empowered, intelligent, balanced women who were precocious children. This is a difficult line to rationally draw: some girls will experience trauma from being featured in "Idol" magazines and others will not. If the girl is not traumatized, we cannot rightly claim that she was abused ("traumatized," as I'm using it here, allows for adult dysfunction as well, not just immediate discomfort).

[Trolldor]

I don't find fault with any male experiencing a hormonal response to secondary sexual characteristics. I am concerned, however, that repeated exposure to such material in the context within which such exposure undoubtedly may occur will probably end up conditioning consumers' sexual responses in an unhealthy manner. I am also concerned that some of these girls are too young to actually have secondary sexual characteristics yet, and thus any arrousal response is already abnormal.

I would say, however, that this is not necessarily a 'moral' issue. Morality is should be about what we do to each other, not about what we think about each other. This trend only really becomes unethical when it results in harm to children. What constitutes harm to children is difficult to define. Is it harmful to prematurely sexualize girls? Doubtless. Is it harmful for girls to realize at an early age that they can have this effect on men? Probably not. I know quite a few empowered, intelligent, balanced women who were precocious children. This is a difficult line to rationally draw: some girls will experience trauma from being featured in "Idol" magazines and others will not. If the girl is not traumatized, we cannot rightly claim that she was abused ("traumatized," as I'm using it here, allows for adult dysfunction as well, not just immediate discomfort).

When ten year old girls in bathing suits and g-strings becomes 'the norm' something has to be done to stop it.
Especially with Asian girls who look like they're ten till they hit about fifteen.

[ScholasticSpastic]

When ten year old girls in bathing suits and g-strings becomes 'the norm' something has to be done to stop it.
Especially with Asian girls who look like they're ten till they hit about fifteen.

The only thing wrong with ten year old girls in g-strings is that most kids would rather be naked if their parents would let them. We're confusing attire with behavior, here. They're two different things. What we really think is wrong is the older guys slobbering about ten year old girls in g-strings. I might agree with that. A ten year old is typically devoid of secondary sexual characteristics and it's probably not healthy to be aroused by that. But it's only unethical if it hurts someone. It's not even considered a psychological disorder unless it causes distress to the person having those feelings or interferes with their ability to perform up to society's expectations. We need to distinguish between thought-crime and real crime. In real crime people get hurt. I tend to agree with Orwell when it comes to thought-crime. It's bad, m'kay?

[Trolldor]

A g-string is a piece of clothing deliberately designed to be sexually arousing, and when you put it on a ten year old you're deliberately trying to make a ten year old sexually appealing.

[ScholasticSpastic]

A g-string is a piece of clothing deliberately designed to be sexually arousing, and when you put it on a ten year old you're deliberately trying to make a ten year old sexually appealing.

Really? I thought the purpose of a g-string was to make more skin available for exposure to the yummy elements while still allowing a nod to societies' idiotic modesty rules. A child in a g-string is more natural than a child in a one-piece swimsuit because children tend to want to be naked. Seriously. Two out of three of my sibling cohort were nudists at heart as children (I was the exception). The other sibling (me) only learned to appreciate nekkidness as an adult.

What you're really saying is wrong is that there are adults who would want to see children in g-strings. That's a different thing. It's a moral judgement and one I think the law should keep away from while there is no demonstrable link to endangering children.

Most people watch violent movies and never kill anyone. Very few people watch violent movies and kill people and there is no demonstrable causal link between watching violent movies and killing people. I would say the same about scantily-clad children and pedophiles. If we put all our children in burqas would pedophilia go away? Doesn't appear to have worked in Islamic nations.