Sunday, September 24, 2006

Parenting through fear

On one of the message boards about pregnancy that I often go to, several of the women are in an uproar regarding Cindy Crawford decision to allow her 5-year-old daughter to pose in a "provocative" way for a children's line of swimsuits. Here is a link to the photo.

Most of the women are concerned about the number of pedophiles viewing this picture and the negative affect it will have on their children. They are also questioning Crawford's ability to parent a daughter, arguing that her modeling career has influenced her ability to make safe decisions for her daughter. I have to say I don't get the controversy. It is, in my mind, a fairly innocent picture. I will concede that the fake tattoo on her lower back is a bit odd, but beyond that, I don't see it as provocative or as a sign that Crawford is a bad parent. The child is not coquettish, flirtatious, or sexualized. When did it stop being ok for a 5-year-old girl to be topless? I remember running around topless at the beach and in my backyard until is was about 6 or so. I'd much rather have see a 5-year-old girl at the beach in a pair of shorts without a top on than see her in some of the horrifically skimpy string bikinis for girls the same age I've come across. Can the naked body, especially the naked body of a child, be presented in a way that isn't sexual? I don't see this as sexual. I do see the outcry to remove it from the internet and the backlash against Crawford as close-minded censorship. I also find it interesting that in all the posts regarding this picture that I've seen no one has mentioned the girl's father. I'm certain the modeling contract required the signatures of both parents, as such contracts typically do. Yet only Crawford is being held accountable; only her parenting skills are being questioned. Obviously, as a mother, she should have known better. She should have refused to allow the photograph to be taken; she should have "protected" her daughter. But from what? A photograph that is actually quite pretty? I find it amazing that rather than seeing the artistic merit in something (and I would argue there is some artistic merit to this photograph), we immediately jump to the conclusion that something is inappropriate, distasteful, and pornographic.

I've been thinking a lot about the fear associated with being a parent lately. I think parents, particularly mothers, are being told to fear everything from germs to premature labor to rebellious teens to pedophiles. That is a big leap, I realize, but it seems to me that there are more and more outlets encouraging us to parent according to fear. Don't do this, don't do that, do eat this, don't feed the baby that, avoid these places, if you do this then this horrific, tragic event will surely occur. I definitely believe in being prepared for the worst, but I'd much spend my time hoping for the best.

2 comments:

Dr. Peters said...

I was thinking that, too, Megs. Youth is fetishized, and we (the ubiquitous, cultural "we") feel guilty about the sexualizing of child-like qualities. So we call this picture sexual and refer to all of the evil pedophiles who are downloading it for their collections, projecting our discomfort onto the predatory monsters lurking in the dark to reassure ourselves that we, the normal, unmonstrous people, do not find this sexy. We do not find this sexy, yet we scream foul because it is...sexy. The picture is not inherently sexual--what is uncomfortable is the fact that we are accustomed to seeing grown, sexually mature women in baby doll dresses with full cheeks and big eyes and call that erotic.

Dr. Peters said...

To add another perspective, the hubby thinks that the pic is inappropriately sexual because the way her back is turned and her arm is placed, she is deliberately hiding her breasts, implying that they are sexual body parts that should be hidden, even on a five-year-old. He wouldn't, then, have a problem with such a little girl running on the beach topless because that would imply that there is no reason to hide her breasts because they are not sexual objects on a five-year-old. So the conspicuous HIDING of the breasts is what implies sexuality.