Reading this latest diary entry from Andrew McCarthy, I couldn't help but think of some recent words uttered by Brooke Shields, about young actresses like Lindsey Lohan:

"The former child star says, "I think a lot of these girls are young, and it's all so tempting. For some reason I wasn't tempted. I don't know why.

"Sometimes I wish I was a little more tempted to have a little more fun. But then I see them (young Hollywood female celebrities) and someone will ask, 'Well, what do you want to say to so-and-so?' I don't want to say anything to them. I want to talk to their mothers.

"http://www.people.com/people/­article/0,,20052189,00.html

Although I respect where Shields is coming from, the irony of her words really stands out for me, given her own history of absolute exploitation by her mother, Terri Shields.

While it's true that Brooke Shields did not abuse drugs and show up to movie sets habitually late (and high) when she was a child/model/actress, and while she seems to have been, from all accounts, a very poised, polite, intelligent and grounded child -

the fact is - her mother, Terri Shields, had absolutely no problem with selling Brooke's face and body over and over again in very provocative ways, in order for Brooke to achieve massive fame as a young girl.

That revealing photo of young Brooke, which McCarthy cites, although even more explicit than others, perhaps, is but one image from thousands taken of Brooke, as a girl, that show her heavily made-up and sexualized, deliberately posed and presented to look far older than her years.

Brooke Shields' youthful beauty was quite striking. Terri knew this and eagerly gave her stamp of approval for countless deliberately revealing, carefully manipulated images of pre-teen Brooke to be shot, permitting the exploitation of Brooke's child-beauty in a very explicit fashion.

There is no denying that Terri Shields gave the green light to Brooke's exploitation with vigor and enthusiasm. Furthermore, Terri knew excatly what she was doing, even if Brooke, as a child, did not.

I'm certainly relieved for Brooke Shields that, despite such a childhood, she is (or seems to be) absolutely fine - and, perhaps was so, even when a little girl. Maybe to her, it was all just dress-up. However, that does not excuse Terri for what she did to Brooke.

This fact, if so, does not negate the greater fact that Shields was exploited by her mother, no matter how Brooke Shields might have felt about it, then, or even now.

Let's face it: Brooke Shields, as a child, was offered up to the hungry and greedy gods of popular culture as nothing so much as the image of a highly sexualized, beautiful and alluring - child. She is the precursser to Jon-Benet Ramsey - an unnaturally beautiful young girl gleefully manipulated by the mother for fun, profit - and (vicarious) fame.

Brooke Shields' early movies, such as "Pretty Baby", "The Blue Lagoon" and "Wanda Nevada", (in which she is "won" in a poker game by Peter Fonda) also exploited her youthful appeal in quite gratuitous ways.

So, in light of all this - if you ever get to talk to those *other* mothers of young stars, Brooke, I hope you will do so, not from a place of censure, but rather, from your own, intimate knowledge of what it is like to have had your body and face sold as fodder, when very young, to the fame-machine.

although i can't disgree with you about using children to elicit fame and money--i don't see how its any different when parents do it for sports, or quiz shows or any other endeavor where the "child" is used to profess for the public's needs. her photos and film aren't considered pornography (mostly accepted as middlebrow art)--and since she seems so well grounded, graduated Princeton etc..this is how this "family" chose their career--whether it was for the money or fame or art--who cares? i would think the McCulkin (sp?) family is much more fucked up (w/o any sexual exploitation) than a Brooke Shields c.v.

"i don't see how its any different when parents do it for sports, or quiz shows or any other endeavor where the "child" is used to profess for the public's needs."

I do think that using children, (*especially* by emphasizing their looks and making them pose in certain ways) is definitely more provocative and potentially disturbing than putting them in quiz shows, sports and so forth - where skill and intelligence can be honed, after all (although, when pushed to extremes, sports and spelling-bees can be unhealthy, as well).

What does it say about our society that we allow the objectification of little girls, (and that we are comfortable calling it "middle-brow") - yet we also worry over kids having kids, and kids being pushed too early in all sorts of ways?

I won't get into trying to define what the Supreme Court has shied away from, but I think that any parent who uses his or her kid as a way to feed off fame is a (highly) quetionable parent, at best.

Especially when they allow their child to pose in salacious ways.

We are so used to allowing kids being used that we can't even call it out, as such.

I can't wait for all the criticisms that I am being a "prude" (or worse).

not a prude but selective is what you see as disturbing. its ok to

have the equivalent of a "stage" parent in sports or some other ex-

ploitive activity but a little nudity (that's accepted by the critics) and hanging in the guggenheim is too provocative--you can't legislate morality and certainly can't impose your own--unless you live in "Huckabee Country".. if a family living at the poverty level had a chance to do the same thing as Shields family did --would you still be critical that they did what was needed to elevate themselves to a better lifestyle--would the dhild really be scared/ i think the McCulkin(sp?) family is much more fucked up than

and Brooke Shields seems to be very grounded. and its nice to have someone like McCarthy to give us a little exposure into these people's lives.

"...if a family living at the poverty level had a chance to do the same thing as Shields family did --would you still be critical that they did what was needed to elevate themselves to a better lifestyle."

Your very question presupposes that there are real ethical issues at stake when it comes to "stage mothers" (and fathers). I think Shields was used by her mother in a very calculated way. Shields wants to question the mothers of young actresses today, but I think her own mother showed highly questionable judgement as a parent.

We can say: oh well, look at Brooke today - a highly successful, balanced individual. True enough (as far as we know) - but this still does not excuse or negate the fact that she was exploited as a child by her own parent.

Terri didn't have to let Brooke pose in certain ways, wearing (or not wearing) certain clothes - but she Did allow this, knowingly and deliberately.

but you didn't answer my question about the hypothetical family (excuse any syntax or grammatical errors as i'm trying to do this while at work)---agreed, "Terri" as you call her exploited her kid. agreed, she grew up relatively normal or even exceptional--so i wouldn't call her scarred or emotionally crippled (seemingly--who are we to know except for the brief insight by McCarthy). Americans are very prudish about their sexuality. the pictures of Shields when she was prepubescent wouldn't raise an eyebrow in most european countries. the more one focuses on it, the more it speaks about the writer's own obscession and awkwardness about sexuality. parents exploit their kids for all kinds of things as i mentioned before --i don't see sexuality being any worse--there's a lot more to it to make a child have an emotional illness than some "Pretty Baby" pictures. what Lohan or Spears or Hilton's family have done (or allowed ) is much more pornographic (to me) than anything the Shield's family has done.

You keep writing that some families are worse off than Brooke Shields. As I have stated - repeatedly - even if that is true, Brooke was still used. Some kids are used in even worse ways. Granted. So let's move on from that. Comparing other wrongs to make something else look okay is not a very strong way to argue against my stance. Your argument is akin to saying: yes, rape is bad - but murder is so much worse! And look - the rape victim is really okay, at this point! Better than okay, in fact!

Then you mention Europe. Typical. I think we have to be careful not to generalize too much about "Europe". And, to imply that because Europeans may have a more permissive attitudes, in general, means that All Americans are up-tight prudes - well, that just gets back to my original point of using my reaction as a rationale to invalidate what I am writing. I'm a Prude. I'm an American. End of story.

Well, maybe Europeans are healthier in their attitudes, but maybe in some ways they are not. Let's not romanticize "Europe". That's just silly.

I stand by my points. Brooke Shields critiques certain mothers of certain starlets. Fine, that is her right. She is grounded, a good individual - a good mother. She must have gotten this from somewhere - so, maybe Terri Shields did a good job in some ways. And/or Brooke came into this world extremely grounded.

Of course, we Don't know what her childhood has done to her. I'd doubt the public would get the full story on that, anyway. Lots of people *seem* impressive - on paper. That doesn't say much, necessarily, in terms of what they have been through).

Even if Brooke has emerged from her past completely fine, at this juncture - my points still stand. Brooke was used in ways that hurt every little girl. I don't, personally, think it's "healthy" to be permissive to the point where ten year old girls are set-up as objects of fantasy for people much, much older than her. Because that is the result of such images - regardless of what Terri - or Brooke, herself, meant to do.

i think you missed my point (entirely, i might add ) about the other "girls"--their lives are much more exploitive and pornographic w/o any nudity (barring that incredibly boring Hilton video) than Shields' shinanigans. as i said before, i'll repeat: you can't corner the market on morality--its a moving target. this decade is different from the 90's and so on. i don't know what people did in the fifties--it must have been so stifling. in the end i just see you as someone who can look deeply into other people's lives and know what harm has or has not been done. maybe like Potter Stewart, "you know it when you see it", but it weems your argument just doesn't hold up in the long run. if Brooke was exploited and this is supposed to be a bad thing--its bad because if repercussions in the future. so if she is well-adjusted, has insight into her childhood and life--what was it again, you're trying to prevent? some neuroses? a little depression. can you discriminate these traits in people who acquire them w/o stage mothers?

i undrstand you're upset with "Terri" for doing this to her kid--but at least find a child that was harmed by these actions before going all medieval on it.

"you can't corner the market on morality--its a moving target."

I'm not trying to corner any market. I'm expressing my opinions on these issues, just as you are also doing. And, frankly, I could make an argument that your attitudes toward me and my opinions are not simply a disagreement: they are highly judgemental and therefore: moralistic. So, be that as it may, it's not wrong to take a moral stance on something, unless one thinks that everything in the world is amoral. And, most people do Not think that way. Including yourself, obviously.

"this decade is different from the 90's and so on. i don't know what people did in the fifties--it must have been so stifling."

Hey, excuse me, but: neither do I. The 50's were a bit before my time, dear.;) But why assume that because we are a certain way today, as a culture, that it must be right, automatically? I think that's quite debatable, in certain way, although hardly in everything. Your efforts to paint me as an "old fogey" are just weak, especially as you do not know me at all. One of my favorite periods is the 60s, in fact.

"in the end i just see you as someone who can look deeply into other people's lives and know what harm has or has not been done."

That's your take on me, but *not* my original argument. My *original point* was that Brooke Shields was being critical of *other* Hollywood mothers - yet, what about her mother? Was it okay that Terri Shields did what she did? You think not, I think so. That is what it gets back to.

I guess you'd be okay with letting a ten year old girl pose with no clothes, in a bath-tub, body oiled, heavily made-up. Fine; thanks for sharing.

Terri and Brooke Shields tried to have those photos blocked from being shown, BTW. I wish they had succeeded, but the point is: had Terri shown a little more judgement, they wouldn't have existed in the first place. End of story.

And, even if Brooke is A-Okay, that does not mean our culture is. I'm worried about how the envelope for exposure keeps getting pushed more and more.

well, i must have said something right to get you all bunched up. if you want to be the "moral police" so be it. its irkssome that you tried to flip it around to make me the moralist--nice try but i'm not the one screaming the ski is falling because a ten yo had her picture taken in make-up (was she wearing heels--maybe you can get on the fetishists for that and save a separate posting). this is beyond being the prude descended from the pilgrims at plymouth rock. this is you having a tough time with any sexuality that doesn't fit into your paradigm--and we have both admitted DOES fit into other poeples sense of aesthetics/art whatever.

i don't think (but who really knows) that wanted those pictures stopped because they thought it "wrong"--but didn't want to derail her career. but culture and times caught up with them and its actually ok to admit that everyone has some sort of sexuality (in your case no matter how repressed). you don't like the european model (too pedestrain for you)--ok; you don't like that there was no damage done--ok. the only thing left is that you're pissed off at Terri--what a bad mother. of all the "bad mothers" you single her out. Shields shouldn't have to apologize for her mother or feel she is in no position to be critical of other moms. as a matter of fact, if someone needed a model of how to promote the career of one's daughter and be edgy and contribute to the culture, she should get honors for it.

it must be hard seeing a lot of moms not living up to your expectations. when you become in charge of the Ministry of Right from Wrong--they should get worried.

Why keep responding to me? Hey - Just write me off as the repressed person with the judgemental ideas that you, a free person of awareness, do not have to be fettered by. I stand by all I have said, but I am not interested in increasing the level of hostility just so you can get in more digs, because you don't like how I think.

thay's hard to respond to--but i'll try, for the good of libertarians everywhere (of which i'm not one). its not that i'm opposed to what you think -its what you're saying and accusing. i thought i responded to the level of hostility that you managed wuite well to hurl at me--and i thought you held your own very well...sorry your stamina ran out.

by the way i saw your response to the obesity topic--i wouldn't say you have it completely wrong but those with high or morbidly hig BMI's will have to do something if they want to live longer and have less morbidity. as someone who has to deal with all the complications assoc. with the overeating, lack of exercise, (and yes, some genetic cause)--its a very sad sight to see the obese struggle in illness let along day to day function.

have you noticed that relatively speaking, there are few morbidly obese (or even those with a BMI over 30) after a certain age (pick one: 60,65,70 ). the exceptions are a marvel..

At this point, agreeing to disagree is the best option, I think. Some of your ideas strike me as being valid, and so: you've given me pause for thought, even though I also continue to stand behind most of what I have written. I think shades of gray are more applicable, now, that rigid black or white, as regards all this.

I meant to write "than", not "that".

One, final note: I have respect and admiration for Brooke Shields. And also: I do not see her mother as Evil or Bad. But I do question some of her judgement, as regards when Brooke Shields first got started in show biz.

But really, it's this culture that I question, via some of Terri Shields' long-ago choices for her young daughter, (in this thread). I feel that, with entertainment, that we've gone so far that nothing is becoming questionable anymore, or shocking. At the same time we are often rigid and repressive. (For instance, with Gay marriage). It's an odd combination.

Anyway, I've written enough about all this, at this point.