Um, yes it is.
Is this child abuse?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
Um, yes it is.
Child beauty pageants have been going on for decades, and the vast majority of Americans had little knowledge of or interest in the phenomenon until the JonBenet Ramsey murder case made them a national issue.
There’s no way a child of eight can consent to a cosmetic procedure that’s potentially dangerous, even life-threatening, if not done correctly. Furthermore, in California, only a licensed physician or a registered nurse or physician assistant under a physican’s supervision may legally administer Botox injections.
So what this woman did is not only sick and fucked up, but illegal. If the story isn’t a hoax, that is.
Donald Trump? What does he have to do with this?
A lot of us American men are like that, actually. Personally I’m repulsed by hairy female legs and armpits. It may be the result of arbitrary social conditioning, but so be it. Many of our customs, practices and preferences have no logical basis. There’s no practical reason not to swear in public either. I mean, words are just words, right?
Last edited:
Yes.
The line between news and entertainment was blurred a long time ago.
The child is 8; she can't give consent. If that were the standard for medical care of a child, no procedures could be done on children at all. The issue here is whether or not it's necessary or beneficial. In this case, it's neither. It's a mother sticking needles into her daughter's face with no tangible benefit. In fact, there is the potential for harm beside the pain. Yes, I think this does qualify as abuse.
Truly, I've never seen such class!
Child pageants should be illegal. I'm even iffy about teen pageants because I don't think that a teenager is developmentally far enough along to have a healthy body image if they get involved in that kind of thing. (Even non-pageant teens have a hard enough time as it is.) This stuff should wait until 18.
Nope, that's probably accurate for a large segment of the American population. Indeed, I'd suspect that if the trend holds, at some point we're all going to be hairless.
I think I could probably get used to it, at some point. For example, armpit hair on a woman doesn't bother me very much, though, probably because of 6 1/2 year relationship with an enkempt person. Which is weird, given that I occasionally shave my own.
Scotpens said:
Socially disapproving of screaming swear words when that is usually used to express anger or an impending breach of peace, and which have the potential to generate anger or a breach of peace, is probably less arbitrary.
As for saying curse words in a normal tone of voice in public, in a way that no one can mistake it as a physical threat? It's justifiable to disapproved of that as well, inasmuch as the overuse of curse words, and demonstrating that they are just arbitrary sounds (like any word), lessens their power for situations where they're genuinely useful.
(On the other hand, English possesses no verb with a similar utility as fuck. I've said for years that we need a middle ground between a vulgar expression on one hand and the clinical terms and goofy euphemisms for sexuality on the other. Preferably, a word whose root isn't probably "to strike." What about "screw"? Better, but not terribly euhponic, either.)
How about “hump,” “root” or “shag”?
Root? Maybe for anal sex.
Shag's actually not too bad, though.
Jadzia said:
I agree on the latter point, but not on the former. I don't see any way around a conclusion that forcing little girls to be "beautiful" in ways that closely mimick adult beauty has some weird, underlying sexualizing element to it.
I mean, lipstick is for reminding people that the wearer has a vagina. I don't really need to see it on anyone, and it's bizarre to see it on kids.
Root, at least in Australia, NZ and I suppose Britain, means vaginal sex.
I think she is reasonably pretty.
I thought it was stated that she was an anesthetist not a beautician but maybe I heard it wrongly.I also thought botox could only be done by a doctor, but the mother claims to know how because she is a beautician. Do you (or anyone) know if this is true? Obviously I've never had it done and I know little about it.
Edited to add - I listened again. Maybe it was stated that she was an esthetician (which would indeed make her a beautician).
Depends on where the hair is located. Head and genitals good, legs and armpits bad. Of course, the younger generation doesn't seem to like hair at all (and the US seems to be behind the curve on that trend).
When asked why she is having Botox, the kid first says that she doesn't know and then has to be coached by the mother. I'd say that she's genuinely being used.
Yes, no and yes. She's a kid. She doesn't have to know that she's being abused to be abused. She's got a crazy ass mother who's damaging her physically and mentally.
Each person (rightfully or wrongfully) decides for themselves what lipstick means. But the perspective that's by far the most important is the wearer's own perspective. Perspectives different to that are perversions ~ projections of your own adult interpretations onto something innocent.
When a child wears lipstick, do they do so to remind people they have a vagina? I would say not. From the child's point of view, is it something innocent and playful, no different to having a hair braid or dressing up as a nurse or a witch? It was for me when I was young.
I would say that a child's attitude to cosmetic beauty is likely to be as innocent as the lipstick example above. If a child doesn't see playing with cosmetics as sexualising, then neither should we.
Count me in the 99%. Aside from all the issues about sexuality, about perversion, and all that, she's an 8-year-old being administered a treatment that could result in her injury or death- by someone who, for all intents and purposes, has presented no credentials that she knows what the fuck she's doing. And then she's going to grow up helping to create a world where if you don't have perfect 91-61-91 measurements, you're useless, which makes me even more disgusted.
If ever I needed proof that a long-term (but temporary) sterilization procedure for both genders needs to be developed and administered to certain kinds of people as a punishment/preventative measure, this story is it.
If ever I needed proof that a long-term (but temporary) sterilization procedure for both genders needs to be developed and administered to certain kinds of people as a punishment/preventative measure, this story is it.
Whoever is waxing an 8 year olds pubic region should be charged with child abuse. Someone needs to hotline this story if it hasn't been called to the attention of the authorities already.
I gather that the authorties are now looking into the case.
Make that everyone, and only allow reversal of the op if you meet certain stringent criteria. I'm an unashamed eugenicist. Humans are a plague on the planet.
He dropped him onto a emergency air cushion so I don't have a problem, he holds onto him as he aims the guy to fall there so no intent to kill him
.As for the mum...
Take the kid away from the mother and give her the mental treatment she needs. Also the Kid probably will need the same help from a doc to realise that she doesn't need have botox at her age because you know if she ever becomes a mother when she is older the same will probably happen.
Removed from her custody. Yay.
http://www.thesuperficial.com/botox-mom-lost-custody-kerry-campbell-05-2011
http://www.thesuperficial.com/botox-mom-lost-custody-kerry-campbell-05-2011
Similar threads
