Since time immemorial, the spirit of competition has been inherent in man; adults compete in everything and everywhere. However, watching children compete to be prettier seems not only unfair but also wrong. Children’s beauty contests were cute demonstrations of talent, which later turned into brutal competitions. The child loses his childhood and develops various mental and physical diseases. Recently, more and more people are of the opinion that children’s beauty pageants should be banned.
Emergence and Modernity
Children’s competitions began to completely copy similar events for adults in the 60s, especially among girls. From then on, they had to show off their best evening dresses and talents – singing, dancing, or anything to charm the judges. The little winners were given mini-tiaras, flowers, and plush toys; in some cases, they received a cash prize. Modern children’s beauty contests are constantly criticized – many are worried about how they affect children’s physical and mental health. Opponents of the contests focus on the fact that the minor participants are sexualized (Kelly and Garmon 202). On the show, they look like their adult fellow contestants: they put on bright makeup, do manicures and complex hairstyles, put on self-tanners, put on heels, and go on stage in skimpy outfits.
The Price of Beauty
To win the competition, children constantly train and sit on strict diets, and many of them suffer from eating disorders. In the first place for them are external qualities – harmony and attractiveness, which become their primary weapon on the path to success. With constant training and modifications, both study and any social contacts recede into the background in such a regime. Another significant problem behind the preparation is intense tanning and lack of adequate training. Many psychologists believe that such shows provoke pedophiles. Beauty contests allow girls to look like modern âLolitas,â which spurs people prone to pedophilia.
Beauty pageant contestants are not born with a strong desire to win the title of âMiss Xâ and do not enter pageants on their own. The initiators are the mothers of girls, and those, due to their age and pressure from parental authority, cannot say âno.â For many mothers, a child’s victory in competition becomes a matter of a lifetime, and they are ready to invest their efforts, time, and a lot of money in this event. Though if someone sews the best suits and carefully puts a diet lunch in a child’s lunch box, others are too biased about the matter. In 2011, it became known that American Kerry Campbell was giving Botox injections to her eight-year-old daughter Britney to look better than her rivals and be able to take first place (Eight-year-old Botox User). However, she is not the only mother of the future âMiss Perfectâ who decided on such injections for her child.
Psychological Impact
Almost all psychologists oppose such children’s competitions. Little girls get approval when they try on the images of adult women, after which they can no longer get rid of these images. As a result, sexual development in children occurs at a too young age, ahead of time. It happens, among other things, because small children become like adults and do things that do not correspond to their age, which is very dangerous for an unformed psyche. In addition, the frustration they get if they lose also takes a toll on children’s mental health. For example, if parents praise their children, proving that they are the most beautiful and talented, and end up not winning the competition, this dramatically affects their self-esteem. Beauty contests for children should also be banned because they teach children to prioritize life incorrectly: beauty and appearance are always pushed forward, resulting in reduced education. Moreover, they deprive them of their childhood and can lead to abuse.
Works Cited
âEight-Year-Old Botox User Taken into Care in America.âBBC News, BBC, 2017, Web.
Kelly, Jessica M., and Lance C. Garmon. âPerceptions of Child Beauty Pageants and Their Impacts: What Really Lies behind the Tiara?âAtlantic Journal of Communication, vol. 24, no. 4, 2016, pp. 201â215. Web.
Appendix A
