Posted on 08/05/2006 9:37:49 AM PDT by wagglebee
In the nearly ten years since Jon Benet Ramsey’s death, I’ve spent little time pondering the identity of that little girl’s murderer. I’ve known the answer to that question for years. And so have you. But one time several years ago - during the height of the media coverage of the case - I did hear one interesting assertion about the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey; namely, that there was absolutely no evidence they had ever sexually abused their little girl.
When I heard the assertion that there was “absolutely no evidence” of sexual abuse of Jon Benet Ramsey, I immediately recalled a picture of the little girl when she was around the age of four. She was wearing a brightly colored strapless dress that matched her brightly colored lipstick. Her makeup was as heavy as that of any hooker or drag queen in San Francisco.
This begs a fundamental question: Are we sexually abusing our little girls when we dress them up to look like prostitutes? Of course, I would submit that we are.
Fortunately, when the Ramsey case broke it was very unusual to see a couple dressing a small child like a hooker. Unfortunately, today it is commonplace. An episode I witnessed the other day illustrates just how little parents seem to think before allowing their little girls to dress and carry themselves in an entirely-too-adult fashion.
On my daily jog though my neighborhood I ran by the house of a man I know fairly well. His garage door was open and music was blaring out of a jam box inside - in fact, the music was so loud it was barely recognizable. But I could tell the song was “These boots are made for walking,” which was popularized by Nancy Sinatra in the 1960s. His two grandchildren were dancing in the driveway to the recent remake of the tune, sung by Jessica Simpson.
As my neighbor’s two grandchildren were standing in the driveway - while gyrating their hips like a couple of prostitutes - I noticed they were both wearing cutoff “Daisy Duke” style short and halter tops. The oldest girl looked like she was wearing mascara. She is 11 years old, by the way. Her younger sister is nine.
There is obviously something very wrong psychologically with the parent who actually dresses a four year old girl like a prostitute. There is also something wrong with the parent who allows a nine or even an eleven year old girl to dress herself like one – not to mention carry herself like one, too. It is not cute. It is simply crude and indecent.
But there is more to the equation than bad taste, here. In today’s world, people who do not make sure their little girls are dressed like little girls are exposing them to extreme danger.
Shortly after I finished my afternoon jog, I went to one of the numerous websites (http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/) that can be used to locate registered sex offenders. I wanted to know how far those two little girls – the ones dancing like hookers - were from the nearest convicted pedophile. The answer: about 500 yards.
Parents of small children (especially little girls) need to do the following things after finishing this short but important column:
Log on to the internet and find the nearest registered sex offenders in your neighborhood.
Make sure you voice your complaints to local retailers who sell sexually provocative clothes marketed for little girls.
Make a note of the names of the companies that manufacture inappropriate clothing for children next time you see these products. Write them and tell them exactly why you will never, ever buy their products.
Tune in occasionally to The O’Reilly Factor to keep track of Bill’s segments on Jessica’s law – a measure designed to impose mandatory 25-year sentences on first-time child molesters.
Make sure that your lawmakers know you will not support them unless they support Jessica’s Law. In other words, impose a simple ideological litmus test on all of your representatives.
I hope all of my readers will give serious consideration to the advice I have proffered today. Even if you reject some of my specific points, keep my general thesis in mind. Our little girls will be women far sooner than we would like. For the time being we should just let them be little girls.
I think the point of the article is the extreme sexualization of children....
The comment alluding to burkahs (or however they're spelled) is just an outrageous comment going to the other extreme -
Do you really think it's appropriate for little girls to dress like 20 year olds?
It is never better for the innocent to suffer at the hands of the state. Never.
Male DNA found underneath her fingernails and in the blood in her panties has been proven without a doubt to not be John or Burke Ramsey's DNA. No matter how screwed up the crime scene was this evidence is clear proof and it points away from John and Burke.
The problem with this whole case is that too many people think they know all the facts and they really don't know even a fraction of the facts. I believe the police have not helped because they have kept the suspicion up against the Ramseys while they have tried to cover up the mess that they, the police, made out of this investigation.
That's why I'm doing what I do now. In four years, I hope to see a sensible young adult. I must protect her from herself while she is temporarily insane during adolescence.:)
A couple of weeks ago, by chance, one coworker was looking at a new home in a zip code 40 miles from work and checked the offenders registry. It showed another coworker with a rap sheet that included two convictions and 5 years in jail at age 42 for offenses against children under 14. That was in 1984. It spread around the campus in minutes. The convict was let go in just a few days time (he had worked there for many years in a professional position). The registries work in mysterious ways.
Pot, meet kettle. Or rather, noob, meet newbie.
Why do I have the irresistible urge to make a blond joke?
:-)
No handwriting expert has ever testified that the writing on the note and Patsy's handwriting was an EXACT match. The handwriting experts for the prosecution only stated that both handwriting samples displayed SOME of the same characteristics.
30 for my zipcode.
familywatchdog.us works well as an alternative :)
Or it could have been the white out all over my screen?
What ever town he grew up in he would have grown up in a wealthy area in a wealthy family with wealthy neighbors. Areas of town like that tend to be low crime.
LOL! You're sooo bad!
Did you make that pic just for us?
He/she IS is adorable, BTW.
-----
On shorts covering a pubescent rear end, however, it would be tacky.
Really? Missed that in the news. I think they were both somehow involved: one did it and the other helped to actively cover it up. The whole case stunk to high heaven!
That is a myth! Actually, according to the Dept. of Justice figures, the recidivism rate is much lower than for other crimes. Everybody thinks that's true, but it's not.
I wouldn't be surprised if the rates are skewed lower because of the large numbers of false convictions during the daycare hysteria of the recent past. But, that's just a guess.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
I am with you in this! The ONLY way to make sure your little girls dress like CHILDREN these days is to 1- shop in high-end, boutiques or 2-sew their clothes.
There is NOTHING in reasonably priced retail clothes- aside from your basic shorts and t-shirts- that I would buy my great-niece. It's all short, tight skirts, midriff baring tops, or slinky float dresses.
You know it's gotten bad when you take a little girl out, dressed in a smocked dress and maryjanes and lacy socks, and EVERYONE oohs and ahhs and comments that 'you don't see little girls looking like little girls anymore.'
Granted, this is the deep south-so maybe we're more enamored of old-fashioned childrens clothes. Not everyone likes them, but there should be SOME choice for those who don't want their 5 year olds to look like Britney Spears.
Meanwhile, I'm sewing and smocking and making pinafores and passing up the kids departments in every store I go in.
I told my husband what we were discussing and he snuck off in the kitchen and did it.
On shorts covering a pubescent rear end, however, it would be tacky.
I agree. That's the only time she will have cutie on her butt if I can help it.
Has anyone read this book? I heard it is pretty good.
The 23-year-old author first heard of "modestyniks"--Orthodox Jewish women who withhold physical contact from men until marriage--while a freshman at Williams College. She was initially fascinated by the way in which they cleave to old ideals, especially amid a sexually saturated contemporary world. But more so, Wendy Shalit was aghast at how modestyniks are dismissed as sick, delusional, or repressed by the secular community. "Why," asks the author, "is sexual modesty so threatening to some that they can only respond to it with charges of abuse or delusion?" In her thoughtful three-part essay, the author reveals an impressive reading list as she probes the cultural history of sexual modesty for women and considers whether this virtue may be beneficial in today's world--if not an antidote to misogyny. In an age when women are embarrassed by sexual inexperience, when sex education is introduced as early as primary school, and when women suffer more than ever from eating disorders, stalking, sexual harassment, and date rape, Shalit believes a return to modesty may place women on equal footing with men. She yearns for a time when conservatives can believe the claims of feminists and feminists can differentiate between patriarchy and misogyny and share in the dialectic of female sexuality. While the young author's argument is often limited by naiveté and her own lack of experience, her profound intelligence and daring are undeniable. A Return to Modesty is a thought-provoking debut that introduces an original and exciting new feminist thinker. --Kera Bolonik --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
"I've been here for years longer than you have been, and he's right, and you're wrong. So I wouldn't be so quick to sling the newbie slur if I were you."
I reread my post. I did not use the term "newbie". So I'm kind of missing how I can be guilty of using a slur that I haven't used. I did use the term "common DU troll", however. So your point is well taken.
I also apologize to Muryan for having used the term.
As for who's opinion is right or wrong, that's the point of engaging in debate, is it not? There isn't much to debate in a sarcastic statement, nor is there much to debate when another poster says that party "A" is right, and party "B" is wrong but offers no further explanation to indicate why. Would you care to expand on your point a bit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.