I’m watching an episode of The Doctors. Today, they’re talking about Kendra Wilkenson, who said that she will allow her 6 year old son to see her naked, sexualized picture in Playboy. She has, in fact, taken little Hank to the Playboy mansion to meet Heff. “Little Hank’s already been in his office,” she says. “Little Hank’s already seen the nude magazines. He’s already seen them! He’s cool.”
And she admits that she and Hank take baths and showers together, but is quick to point out that she’s wearing a bathing suit in the bath. “He sees me naked every day. I have no shame.”*
According to the medical and psychological professionals on the Dr.s show, teaching a child body awareness is a natural thing to do. There’s nothing wrong with that.
However, allowing a young child (6) to see hyper-sexualized photos of mom would be developmentally inappropriate. It’s a completely different context. Especially if the child is forced to view such sexually inappropriate photos of his or her mother.
That’s the word they kept using, over and over: inappropriate.
They said that seeing pictures like that would destroy the dynamic of the parent-child relationship. The child will never see his/her parent the same way again. The relationship is permanently altered. Exposing young children to any sexualized environment or situation is, at the very least, inappropriate.
Then they talked about a woman who’s suing because a picture of her was suing because an inappropriate picture of her was posted to social media. She was drunk, she says, so she was in no condition to consent also brought up another good point. I’ve said it myself once or twice. Potential employers check social media. In If a child goes to gt a job at a fortune 500 company and they do a social media check, the first thing they’re going to see is those photos of mom, dad, or auntie. Goodbye job.
I can’t imagine any responsible parent would be so insensitive as to potentially complicate a child’s future in such a way. In the case of a Playboy Bunny, it might be excusable, to a degree, because it’s a well-known establishment, and while it’s a sexually explicit magazine, it is at least done tastefully. And, these photos happened before the child in question was even thought of. It’s not something that’s ongoing. If that were the case, and mom allowed the child in question to not only see the photos, but the photo sessions, it would be a very different, HIGHLY inappropriate (criminal?) scenario.
No matter what, the needs and appropriate well-being should be considered first and foremost.
The Doctors moved on to another topic, but the subject bears thought.