It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sick Society sexualizes a ten year old girl

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I honestly don't think half of ATS members complaining about this "issue" are aware of what child pornography actually is. The photos the OP complained about are not pornographic one bit.

Like I said in another post: Don't like it? Don't look at it. Let it be.




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
If people think pedophile's will use this image for their secret stash, then you better get children off the streets, out of your schools, out of the shopping centers, out of the hospitals, just keep them inside the house, forever and ever until their legal consenting age.

People here are crazy, to me, those images are art, she looks extremely talented in her poses and facial poses, there is nothing sexual about those images.
If anyone thinks or says they are, they need to reevaluate their minds.

Unless a high percentage of children were forced or brought up wearing make-up and donning designer clothing, THEN you'd have an argument that "children should be children", but it's a small minority of children who are in fashion/pageant/singers/dancers etc.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


That's nothing compared to what goes on in little girl beauty pageants.

And those have been going on for a very long time.

Furthermore, Vogue knows what they are doing, and did it deliberately, not to promote pedophilia, but simply to get attention, which obviously they succeeded at.

As the saying goes, "any publicity is good publicity." I don't know if that holds up in a case like this, but it certainly seems to be the goal they were aiming for.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Thurisaz
 
I agree with Logman..... some of you folks are bent. I see no porn or suggestion here. I see a young girl who has entirely too much makeup on, and who has low morals learned at home by a money hungry or trophy hungry parent. yup people, some of you are scarry bent.....burn the witch bent..... good day.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plotus I see a young girl who has entirely too much makeup

How much is too much?


Originally posted by Plotus low morals

How can you tell she is unethical? Are you thinking that tiger didn't die of natural causes?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


Really?
Just turn on your TV.
It's everywhere.

Hell, Just look at the mothers who enter their children into beauty pageants when their kid is only 7 years old.

The mind washing ability of a mother can set a child's life style for life. But then again isn't that what parent's are supposed to do?

If your crying child is too much for you to handle, What does the normal US Family do... Plop them in front of a TV to shut them up.. Now depending on their age the child will not know what is real or fake. So the TV is really just a Program.

I blame the TV for a lot of issues because a lot of people who watch the tube end up forgetting what is real and what is fake. Why would Hollywood be any different?

The real problem tho for most would be, The people making the choices and decisions for their kids. It's always the people they are around that influence this kind of crap. You have the parents cheering their child on, condoning the experience, saying that it is okay to act and dress like this.

It's a sickness on society yet it's society's fault and should be a crime.


PS. This thread reminds me of fat people who wear belly shirts.
edit on 5-8-2011 by SelfSustainedLoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DieBravely
 

Vogue knows what they are doing, but does the little girl? Just look up the definition of exploitation.
I cannot address all posts, I don't have the time, but some key points should be addressed.

Comment: If "these" models were adult, no one would say anything. The fact that it is kids now, makes it pornography?
Me. I would say, that statement is true. Adults are free to express themselves, and it can be labeled as art or it can be marketed however the adult wishes it to be marketed. It can be pornography or just sexually suggestive poses. Adults have that freedom of expression. Unless they are exploited, they make this determination. Children usually don't. Perhaps this child is a business prodigy that knows how to exploit her own body.

Comment: I am sick of you soccer moms......
Me. I really don't know how to respond to that. You have got me on that one. I fold. You get the pot.

Comment: I loved wearing makeup and dressing up in things like this....
Me. Nothing wrong with that. How do you know this girl loves wearing makeup and dressing up. I don't recall that she has been interviewed. Of course, we need a ten year old to interview her, don't you think?

Comment: I have said it before, and I will say it again....(Thank you....btw.) If you see this as sexual you need.........drum roll....consultation.
Me. If I see it as sexual provocation, I am being ANALYTICAL. I am commenting on a photo shoot. I am making my feelings known.

Hello!

.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SelfSustainedLoner
 

Very insightful post, thank you. Except for the belly shirt thing....

It is simply true that society has a sickness. Not terminal I don't think. I really don't think most people know what they are being subjected to is not really REAL. To me, it is like eating plastic.
Another riddle.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I don't see anything sexual about this, it just sounds like some political correctness B.S. to me. Do you people honestly think that child modelling is something new?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 

I don't think it is anything new if by new you mean the last couple of decades or so.
That is not the point though.
You don't see it as sexually provocative. That is relevant. Thanks for the comment.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


I don't see the photos as porn, either. However, the responsible persons here are walking a fine line. Provocative poses are intentional, and that is to stir up erotic feelings or to provoke them.


The target audience of French Vouge Enfants are parents and their children. Also, I think you need to learn about high fashion in general.


edit on 5-8-2011 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Nosred
 

I don't think it is anything new if by new you mean the last couple of decades or so.


Children have been modelling for photographs for as long as cameras have existed. Before that they modeled for paintings. This is nothing but an overreaction from the PC crowd, do you honestly think anything from a group that call themselves the "Mother's union" would be anything but an overreaction?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 

And, again,
I am trying to find the relevant statement in your post.
Yes, children can model. Check. No problem.
Overreaction from the PC crowd. Okay....could be relevant. How so? Am I part of the PC crowd? Do you think I am influenced by the PC crowd?
That could bolster your argument.
"Mothers Union"?
Never heard of them. Irrelevant to this discussion.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
"Mothers Union"?
Never heard of them. Irrelevant to this discussion.


Which shows that you didn't even read the article you posted. Nice one.

edit on 5-8-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 

The "article" is not the subject.
Read the relevant material, then post. That is how it works.
You can do it!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Nosred
 

The "article" is not the subject.
Read the relevant material, then post. That is how it works.
You can do it!



Next time read the article you're posting before posting it, at least that way you'll know all the facts and won't make false assumptions.

Jesus, is everyone illiterate these days? Eventually all newspapers will devolve into pop-up books so that everyone can understand.

Edit: And then you have the guts to call "society" sick.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


While I agree 100% ... this isn't nearly as bad (and this is BAD) as those damned, hideous, kiddie beauty pageants.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
As others have said, this is not child pornography. The only thing disproportionate responses and exaggerated claims are going to do is devalue the things that actually are wrong with this.

This girl is going to have a very difficult time with her self image, and struggle with what is beautiful the rest of her life. By putting her in all this makeup, and dressing her up, that tells her she is not good enough as she iOS, and it sets a bad precedent for other girls.

But again, this is not child pornography. Not all photo shoots or models are supposed to be sexy. A large segment of the modeling world revolves around 'high fashion', Vogue in particular, that focuses on more of the artsy, surreal aspect than the traditional bombshell 'sexy' models. It is obvious this is not trying to be overtly sexual, or exploitative, but artsy high fashion. Oh look, it's a little girl, but she's dressed like a business woman! A pop star! She's putting on lipstick! Surreal. The girl is not wearing anything that would be considered inappropriate for her to wear in public. None of her poses are sexually suggestive, the focus is not on any of her private areas.

I mean seriously, there are little girls I go to church with who are more 'dolled' up than that. Should we all be jailed for for taking church photos? If you complain about the actual wrongs with the situation, people will actually listen and maybe something constructive about it. But making such ridiculous assertions destroys any chance the argument had of doing any good. If you think this is exploitative, you are probably right. if you think these images sexualize this girl, the problem might be internal or with your perception. If a girl was dressed like this walking down the street with her mother, would you think 'Damn, that girl is being sexualized!' or would you think 'Damn, that mom is setting a bad standard for that girl, with all that makeup'?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by DieBravely
 

Comment: I have said it before, and I will say it again....(Thank you....btw.) If you see this as sexual you need.........drum roll....consultation.
Me. If I see it as sexual provocation, I am being ANALYTICAL. I am commenting on a photo shoot. I am making my feelings known.

Hello!.


Embhasis mine. So... I'm not even sure what to say here. T&C is pretty limiting. I'll just say I worry for you.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Logman
 


I'm sure the majority of people don't find these photo's sexy but the people who took them and set them up, had every intention of making her look sexy and provocative. They are not illegal but the probably should be.
There is already enough sick individuals in society. Do we really need photo's like this out there encouraging them further? Ths is child exploitation at it's worst. parent like this don't deserve children..




top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join