She was only six years old. Her face was painted with mascara, lipstick, and other makeup. She was dressed in clothing designed to expose a substantial portion of her little body. She was taught to effect hula hoop pelvis swaying and burlesque type dance movements that were sexually provocative. With those as assets arranged to provide a perceived advantage for her, she was entered by her parents in "beauty contests."
While I am the opposite of a prude and devoted a section of my pioneering 1960s periodical The Californian ("Censorship Scoreboard") to an attack on legislative and judicial infringements on the right to publish sex content, I cannot help finding it a morally and ethically reprehensible act to indulge in sex exploitation of children. When I look at videos of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey made up and dressed to be sexy and gyrating her body in ways widely recognized as those used to incite and to effect sex, I find myself reacting much like a "Christian fundamentalist," and I want to know why the media is eliminating a discussion of the sex factor in the JonBenet story. Of course the answer to that question in regard to the news side of the media is well known: they engage in hype, not in-depth analysis of what is significant about a story; and oh, are they having an orgasmic time of it exploiting a mentally disturbed pedophiliac's implicating himself in the murder of JonBenet. But what is the excuse for the editorial writers, columnists, oped writers, radio and television commentators? Why are they are not discussing the sex exploitation of children and the critically important role that plays in the JonBenet story?
The Underlying Reason Why the Ramseys Have Been Suspects
In discussing the JonBenet story with the most intelligent and perspicacious of my friends and acquaintances, I find that the major reason why John and Patsy Ramsey have been suspects in the case relates to the sex exploitation factor. They believe that like John Carr, John Ramsey became sexually infatuated with his own sexy child creation, and indulged himself with her, and then either he killed her to stop her from telling her mother what was going on or Patsy Ramsey killed her when she found out. Now, please, do not accuse me of arriving at a conclusion based on hearsay or gossip. I am just relating here what I have heard over and over again, along with the added comment that the detectives who have investigated the case also believe in such a scenario.
Even if there is a finding that neither parent played any part in the murder of JonBenet, that does not eliminate their responsibility for what happened. They and the part of society which indulges in six-year-old "beauty contests," hinging in part on how sexy a six-year-old looks, ought to be held accountable. There are going to be pedophiliacs no matter how society is conducted. But the parents behind and the producers of child "beauty contests" wherein little girls are taught to be sexually provocative ought to be put down. An effort to curb their irresponsible conduct begins with opinions such as this one which, it is my hope, will engender a discussion of the matter and will result in the shaming of anyone and everyone engaged in sex exploitation of children.
While I am the opposite of a prude and devoted a section of my pioneering 1960s periodical The Californian ("Censorship Scoreboard") to an attack on legislative and judicial infringements on the right to publish sex content, I cannot help finding it a morally and ethically reprehensible act to indulge in sex exploitation of children. When I look at videos of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey made up and dressed to be sexy and gyrating her body in ways widely recognized as those used to incite and to effect sex, I find myself reacting much like a "Christian fundamentalist," and I want to know why the media is eliminating a discussion of the sex factor in the JonBenet story. Of course the answer to that question in regard to the news side of the media is well known: they engage in hype, not in-depth analysis of what is significant about a story; and oh, are they having an orgasmic time of it exploiting a mentally disturbed pedophiliac's implicating himself in the murder of JonBenet. But what is the excuse for the editorial writers, columnists, oped writers, radio and television commentators? Why are they are not discussing the sex exploitation of children and the critically important role that plays in the JonBenet story?
The Underlying Reason Why the Ramseys Have Been Suspects
In discussing the JonBenet story with the most intelligent and perspicacious of my friends and acquaintances, I find that the major reason why John and Patsy Ramsey have been suspects in the case relates to the sex exploitation factor. They believe that like John Carr, John Ramsey became sexually infatuated with his own sexy child creation, and indulged himself with her, and then either he killed her to stop her from telling her mother what was going on or Patsy Ramsey killed her when she found out. Now, please, do not accuse me of arriving at a conclusion based on hearsay or gossip. I am just relating here what I have heard over and over again, along with the added comment that the detectives who have investigated the case also believe in such a scenario.
Even if there is a finding that neither parent played any part in the murder of JonBenet, that does not eliminate their responsibility for what happened. They and the part of society which indulges in six-year-old "beauty contests," hinging in part on how sexy a six-year-old looks, ought to be held accountable. There are going to be pedophiliacs no matter how society is conducted. But the parents behind and the producers of child "beauty contests" wherein little girls are taught to be sexually provocative ought to be put down. An effort to curb their irresponsible conduct begins with opinions such as this one which, it is my hope, will engender a discussion of the matter and will result in the shaming of anyone and everyone engaged in sex exploitation of children.
