Josh Murray - Amanda Stanton - BIP 3 - Discussion - #2

The As a parent, I'd personally feel very uncomfortable exposing my kids to the extreme amount of social media presence the way Amanda does. It's especially baffling to me considering the impending custody disspute/issue. Amanda is certainly not the first parent on this show, and she's not even the most high profile. First there was Jason/Ty and Emily/Ricki. I never felt like Jason or Emily ever exposed/used their respective kids the way Amanda does. Ty and Ricki were always more protected. Visible, yes. But protected. Ditto basically every other lower profile parent/child to appear on this show. Amanda (and Josh) are certainly next level.

Why shouldn't you dress your little girls in age inappropriate clothing or plaster them all over SM? 3 words: Jon Benet Ramsey
IMO

^^ Miahawk -- you hit the nail on the head. Another example of excess is the type of thing seen on Toddlers & Tiaras. Awful behavior by both the children and their stage-struck parents. To me it is a form of child abuse. JMO

I've actually never watched Toddlers & Tiaras, but that's about pageant life. Those girls are done up in full hair, make-up & gowns and don't look at all their age. And worse yet they are taught to compete against each other at such a young age. That's an unhealthy environment IMO and very different than posting photos on your IG of your girls wearing matching cute clothes on their way to Disneyland, preschool or at the beach. Apples to oranges IMO.

I am around preschoolers of both sexes daily.
Again, I have yet to see gladiator sandals on the feet of any preschooler male or female. Charlie appears to have 2 prs. at 2.5 yrs old and wears them often.
IMO, it's not the matching outfits that are inappropriate. It's the outfit.
I don't recall seeing any child those ages in spaghetti strapped, midriff baring, tushie baring Halloween costumes. I cut some slack if they were dance recital outfits being recycled, but I somehow don't see that as the case. The other 2 kids in the photo by comparison were age appropriately covered.
IMO an unhealthy environment is exactly what BORDUHM are emulating. These girls don't need a tiara to get there.
No sweat off my back. Not my kids, but I bet the judge has a field day.

^^ Thank you, Kasha, for saying what needed to be said!!

IMO Keeping your kids off SM never hurt anyone..putting them on repeatedly with locations tagged might! Everyone wants to dress their kids in cute outfits and post it but they need to know where to draw the line. IMO Amanda has no clue. Wanting to be a pseudo-celebrity is okay but when so much of your life is publicized including your monthly income, having your kids become so recognizable when they don't have security like regular celebs is putting them at risk IMO. Maybe I am being too dramatic, but I think in today's world, you just gotta be more careful. Amanda can shill all she wants like the rest of Bach Nation..Just keep the kids out of it IMO.

All JMO.

Just to prove my point, do a search for Amanda Stanton.
Her instagram, which is not private came up on the 3rd link for me.
Anyone can view this.
There are many appropriate photos of the children. But there are equally as many inappropriate that should never be put out there for anyone's viewing. IMO Keep them for your private albums.
Seeing photos of children in diapers and underwear and of minimal swimsuits and other baring attire is not publicly appropriate for the world to see. IMO it's poor judgement.

@coolangel @Kashathediva IA reminded me of this I heard in the news a couple of months ago.

Daughter, 18, sues her parents for posting embarrassing photographs of her as a child on Facebook

She is quoted as saying: 'They knew no shame and no limit - and didn’t care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot - every stage was photographed and then made public.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3788817/Daughter-18-sues-parents-posting-embarrassing-photographs-child-Facebook.html#ixzz4OxbiP3TD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Oh, maybe BOR and DUHH shouldn't worry just about the baby daddy's lawyers, but also Kins' and Charlie's lawyers one day? Of course by then, BOR will be just a distant memory

Yeah, the pics of the kids in teeny tiny bikinis are appalling to me. Who even dresses their kids in those, let alone posts it for the world to see? It's like she views the girls as her mini-mes who are just cute props for any photo.

I thought the court date was in September already? Seems like not much has changed.

I guess it's mostly about the mom here.  I took my granddaughter school shopping last week for fall/winter clothes.  I'm really conservative myself but my daughter-in-law out does me by a mile.

We went in this one store and my granddaughter (who is 9 yrs old.) said to me I need your opinion on this dress because mom says it's not appropriate.   The dress was long sleeve white tee type top with red hearts on it and the skirt was black kind of net type. She tried it on and it was an appropriate length and to me it was adorable and I told my daughter-in-law that and she conceded.  (So my granddaughter gave me a high five.)    Anything short she has to wear these shorts under it, which they sell for just that reason.  But the kicker for me was when we went to get her a pair of black dress shoes.  Anna really wanted sort of the bootie type shoe and my daughter-in-law said "No way."  I asked her why as I felt they were for wearing when dressed up only and Stephanie said she's still a baby.  So I finally talked her into the shoe but I could even tell that Anna was not walking properly in them so we ended up with a simple black flat.

I guess the post is to say that Anna Is 9 and Kins and Char are 2 1/2 and 4, much too young for the costumes they had on without proper underwear on.  JMO