Posted on 08/21/2006 2:58:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
IN THESE polarised and war-weary times, it’s good to know that Americans can agree on one thing: John Ramsey is a total creep.
Ramsey is the 63-year-old software entrepreneur whose daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, was beaten and strangled to death in her own home ten years ago. Although neither John nor his wife Pasty were ever charged, he was widely blamed for JonBenet’s killing — and continues to be, even after the death of Patsy from ovarian cancer and last week’s arrest of the teacher John Karr, a child-porn connoisseur who claims that he broke into the Ramseys’ home and murdered the six-year-old (the possibly delusional Karr was extradited from Thailand yesterday, allowing the New York Post to run a front-page photograph of Karr in business class, alongside the headline: “Snake on a Plane”).
Given Karr’s confession — and the lack of any hard evidence against the Ramseys — why does the girl’s father continue to be vilified? Because the businessman, whose late wife was a former Miss West Virginia, allowed his daughter to be trussed up like a call girl and paraded around kiddie-pageants — collecting such titles as Little Miss Merry Christmas, Little Miss Sunburst, and, my favourite, National Tiny Miss Beauty.
What father, tub-thumped the US public, could possibly allow his daughter to be sexualised in this way and displayed for the complicated pleasure of adults? Indeed, the latest development in the JonBenet case has given everyone a new excuse to get all moralistic about such violations of childhood.
Take The New York Times, which on Sunday dedicated its front page to a story about child modelling agencies that publish suggestive online photographs of pre-teens. Read the intro: “The model is shown rising out of a bubble bath, suds dripping from her body. Her tight panties and skimpy top are soaked and revealing . . . The model’s name is Sparkle. She is — at most — nine years old.”
I’m not going to argue that this isn’t deeply unsettling. But it seems only fair to point out that America has developed an astonishing set of double standards on the issue of child exploitation.
Consider America’s Got Talent, the Simon Cowell talent contest that became a huge hit in America over the summer months. Cowell’s show was one long creep-out of novelty kiddie acts, including an 11-year-old yodeller, a 12-year-old harmonica player and, inevitably, an 11-year-old soul diva whose star turn was the Janis Joplin track Piece of My Heart (sample lyric: Didn’t I make you feel like you were the only man, yeah?/ An’ didn’t I give you nearly everything that a woman possibly can?).
Little Miss Joplin ultimately won the wholesome $1 million prize money, and now has Michael Jackson’s adulthood to look forward to.
As for the harmonica player, no one could have cared less when it emerged that he had a “day job” at the topless variety show Buck Wild at the Sahara Hotel in Vegas.
So — let’s get this straight — JonBenet’s pageants were wrong, but a 12-year-old in a strip joint is fine?
And what about the recent boom in slick and sexy marketing to children by corporations? This is apparently fine also.
Indeed, The Los Angeles Times recently ran a five-part series on American tweens (pre-teens), written from a Hollywood marketer’s perspective. The tween demographic (as children are now known) is now responsible for up to $59 billion of discretionary spending every year — whether it’s iPods, kiddie spa treatments or Disneyland holidays. The desire to grab some of this cash appears to have entirely overtaken any desire to protect children from an onslaught of precision-targeted consumerism.
And because the best way to sell things to children is to use other children — who also, in an ideal world, appeal to parents — American popular culture is now saturated by such fare as America’s Got Talent, Radio Disney, Tweenstock (Disney’s music festival) and teen stars such as the Olsen twins, who will be billionaires before they reach drinking age.
In light of all this, America should give John Ramsey a break. Sure, he was a creep in 1996. But can anyone seriously get upset about the dubious taste of the National Tiny Miss Beauty pageant now?
Let’s face it: times have changed. The creep-o-meter needs to be recalibrated.
I'm just looking at it and seeing that some people get overzealous in these child pageants. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but if it happens at all, it's worth a look. I mean, I've heard about parents entering their children into beauty pageants and making them go through plastic surgery to make their faces perfect and then caking them with tons of makeup. It's just weird, and I don't like it.
How many daughters do you have? Ever been to a pagent? Know what it takes to win one?
That ain't right.
The message in the Ramsey photographs and tapes that I've seen is that "here's a little girl made up like an adult." In that context it seems wrong.
In regards to make-up used in dance recitals, etc. from my understanding it is to highlight facial expression during the movement of the performance.
I don't know - any "parent" who feels the need to parade their young daughter around with heavy, painted-on make-up, trying to make her look adult, and dressing here in Daisy-Dukes sounds pretty sick to me.
As a father of a young girl, I wouldn't even begin to think about having my little girl dressed the way John allowed his child to be dressed.
And no - I am not blaming him in any way for his daughter's death. But I do believe he was exercising very poor judgment.
What a charming description of a 6 year old. You must be a blast at parties.
Man, that was a sleazy comment. Real low class.
Well put, I agree for the most part.
Little girls have been playing "dress up" and putting on mommy's make up since frills and make up were invented. Having little girl beauty contests, baby contests and any other sorts of contests for kids have always been perfectly acceptable.
Its the people who try to make them something "sexual" by their villifying tripe that are the problem. Leave these people alone. They did nothing wrong.
[My stepdaughter was a product of pageants...she credits them for teaching her the poise, grace and confidence she exhibits today. My husband "allowed" it...ya wanna tell me he's a perverted creep?]
Why draw the line there? If practice for the adult world is what we're advocating for, regardless of the fact that its sole purpose is promoting sexual allure, then perhaps it's time to let moms and dads legally show their preteen children by example how to have good adult sex. Show them all the most satisfying positions and make sure they practice on each other often, so that by the time they're ready to get married and have children they can have sex with poise, grace and confidence.
That may be true. But some people get overzealous in Little League sports, some people get overzealous in their children's schooling, some people get overzealous in disciplining their children -- it doesn't make the activity itself bad. And it surely doesn't give journalists or others the right to accuse a parent of being a bad parent or a murderer.
I don't particularly care for beauty pageants of all stripes, never interested me. But I don't think parents are murderers because their daughters participate in them.
"As a father of a young girl, I wouldn't even begin to think about having my little girl dressed the way John allowed his child to be dressed."
I don't even like to look at pictures of Jon Benet because it reminds me of a scene out of "Pretty Baby".
At an age when most boys are becoming acutely aware of the opposite sex, L.D. is surrounded by gorgeous, scantily clad women who bare their breasts onstage - but never in his presence.
The breasts aren't the whole show, of course. There is high-energy country music, dancing, corn pone humor a la "Hee-Haw" and specialty acts such as magician Nathan Burton.
There are a limited number of topless scenes.
And L.D. can't watch them, even though his hormones may be in a bit of a rage.
"My mom doesn't let me see any of the ladies," he says. "I wouldn't mind it, but..."
He also is still short enough that he can't see over a 6-foot curtain barrier behind stage. On the other side of the barrier the topless dancers are preparing for their next scene.
I truly believe that the parents/guardians don't see anything wrong with the make-up and costumes. They see it as comparable to a little boys dressed in a tuxedo at a wedding or William Wegman photographs -- but to the outsider the stuff is a little creepy.
bttt
"Its the people who try to make them something "sexual" by their villifying tripe that are the problem."
Oh, so it's not the people who dress children in SWIMSUITS, short-shorts, evening gowns, heels and plaster make-up all over their faces, like a pimp might do to increase business on his lower earming ladies of the evening? It's the people who complain about that who are at fault?
Dumbest thing I have read today, thanks.
Let’s face it: times have changed. The creep-o-meter needs to be recalibrated.
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.