I don't mean to stir things up, but I recently got to thinking about "Child Models," as distinct from children who model professionally ( as Madison Pettis did for Neiman Marcus.)

But first a few questions.

Are Child Model Sites exploitive?

Not inherently. Essentially they're combining two things; the depiction of children and the desire to play dress-up.

I don't think that broadcasting photos of children is exploitive by nature. One could look at the history of Hollywood and "Stage Mothers" and make a compelling argument for an outright ban. Heck, just as audiences got used to Elizabethan boy-actors playing women or the Onnagata of Kabuki; they might get used to alternates for children if there were such a ban. But I can't see singling out amateur "child models" from any other form of depiction which commerce and culture depend upon but which don't contain substantially different content from that which is cited in the standard objections.

And I think that the desire to dress-up in "Mommy's clothing" is a normal and healthy urge. Both as fantasy and as a form of "rehearsal." Trying on the clothing, roles and cultural images of those who are older is part and parcel of growing up. One could also note that there's an industry devoted to postcards like ⛓️‍💥[Removed] which are cute and nostalgic. If depictions of dress-up were banned then many other images would be included in such a content-driven ban. Again, why single one out?

Are child-model images "grooming?"

I don't think so. If there's any "grooming" going on in playing dress-up, its the kind fueled by a culture that views children as a passive patient rather than as an active agent. When children are repeatedly told that respect and the exercise of liberty are the provence of teens and adults, then they will come to fetishize the trappings of being a "big girl." Youth rights would be the antidote for the lure of an artificial image of adulthood. But until such a time as kids aren't devalued in comparison; such comparison's will be drawn by kids.

Now to my point.

I'm not a big fan of Anne Geddis' photos of babies dressed up as turnips or bugs. And while I think that kids playing dress-up whether with the garb of their elders or as characters as Halloween is cute; I'm more interested in kids being themselves.

Playing at other things is good and healthy. But I view the child-model site as the equivalent of the four year old going, "Rawr, I'm a Tiger." I might be inclined to play along with the "Tiger." But when he/she shares their hopes and dreams with me as well as their playtime and imagination, then I feel that they're sharing themself.

That's just my 2 cents.

Dante