Sick Society sexualizes a ten year old girl, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times
Topic started on 4-8-2011 @ 07:32 PM by SirClem
Vogue promotes pedophilia
Vogue soft porn link

This is an innocent child, exploited for profit. But, the exploitation runs much deeper than the child here, this is an abuse of our creative right to express ourselves. I pity the artist that has to stoop so low.
One of the photographs is clearly framed to put curves on a ten year old girl for clearly sexual provocation. This is child porn.
NO, I don't believe the government should step in. I think that true artists should turn their back on whomever is even remotely related to this.
If this is "in vogue", I am an outsider to this sick society.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 07:47 PM by SirClem
reply to post by BlackDove


Childhood innocence should not be perverted for any reason. This is extremely offensive to me, molding a young child into a provocative one-dimensional sex object may not be new. But sanctioned by Vogue?
Perhaps that is not new either, maybe I am out of touch. I think I will continue to be if this crap continues.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 07:54 PM by SirClem
reply to post by BlackDove


Something is wrong with a society when kids are sacrificed for any reason. A society is sick when parents sacrifice their kids for their own selfish, narcissistic reasons.
Yes, leave the friggin kids alone, let them enjoy their childhood.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:00 PM by SirClem
reply to post by Stovokor


That is a great point.
Personally, I don't like the idea of "thought" police going after photographers for taking pics like this. I pity the child for having parents that allow this, but not every "crime" is worth having the government just create more victims. The costs just go up, all around.
It is just offensive to me. Like slapping a child even though no permanent scars will be visible, they will still be there.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:03 PM by BlackDove
Originally posted by SirClem
reply to
post by BlackDove


Something is wrong with a society when kids are sacrificed for any reason. A society is sick when parents sacrifice their kids for their own selfish, narcissistic reasons.
Yes, leave the friggin kids alone, let them enjoy their childhood.



Couldnt agree more.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:05 PM by Logman
reply to post by Stovokor


It's not kidde-porn and these photos would not get you in trouble with the authorities. This is no different from any kid's Beauty Pageant and do you see them in danger of being shut down? If you think that is sexualising a child you should see some of the stuff that comes out of Asia.

A child can look beautiful without being sexual. If you see a child and think she is being sexual then that it is YOU with that proclivity. I saw the photos and saw a beautiful child and didn't think once she looked "sexy".

It's like the right-wing conservatives trying to "straighten" out gay men. They do it because they are gay. And so the people that get outraged and these kinds of photos are in fact projecting their own feelings. Freud would have a field day.



reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:12 PM by SirClem
reply to post by Logman


Wrong Logman.
Someone frames these photographs. The child does not pick the poses.
Someone dresses the model. The child does not pick the outfits. Even IF the child does pick the outfits, doesn't this say something about the culture he/she was raised in?
A society is judged by its character, and its standards. If this is cool, we have no standards.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:16 PM by Nomad451
Originally posted by SirClem
reply to
post by Logman


Wrong Logman.
Someone frames these photographs. The child does not pick the poses.
Someone dresses the model. The child does not pick the outfits. Even IF the child does pick the outfits, doesn't this say something about the culture he/she was raised in?
A society is judged by its character, and its standards. If this is cool, we have no standards.



And what is sexual about any of that? You just backed up logmans argument
edit on 4-8-2011 by Nomad451 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:19 PM by Patrioitinsheepclothing
reply to post by Logman



beau·ti·ful   /ˈbyutəfəl/ Show Spelled[byoo-tuh-fuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. having beauty; having qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind: a beautiful dress; a beautiful speech.


So your saying your one of them??

Does your view towards the Republican go for the Liberal's and their concept of the movie 120 Days to Sodemy, if Im not mistaken, this is a "MUST" for thier video collections.
Maybe you should be the first in line for Frued??
How can people say she isnt dressed in a sexual mannor, how many 10yr olds do you know that wear Bellybutton V-neck cocktail dresses and makeup thick enough to enhance features to a more adult level??


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:22 PM by Patrioitinsheepclothing
reply to post by Nomad451



And pediphile's only go after raunchy child porn, when did they become so selective??
Im thinking some of you need to read more crime sceen evidence of whats found in the home of pediphile's!!


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:25 PM by SirClem
reply to post by Nomad451


This is exploitation.
If you don't see that, then the rest of what I say will be meaningless to you.
Exploitation does not require that YOU get anything out of it. It is the CHILD that is exploited, not YOU.
The harm is to the child, and to our sensibilities. If you don't care about our sensibilities, and you think that the child is not harmed, then YOU are a part of the society that thinks this is okay.
I don't think that you should be prosecuted. I just think it is sick.
That is all.


reply posted on 4-8-2011 @ 08:26 PM by Thurisaz
reply to post by SirClem



I am too upset to make a comment but I want to...

S & F for the OP
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^