It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Nomad451
I thought this is where you were headed. If the "viewer" sees something sinister, then it is all in the "viewers" mind.
The only problem with that is, nature does not work that way. Look around, girls dress provocatively for a reason. Sex sells. Nuns wear full body armor for a reason.
This is a child, dude, not an adult model.
...and to think we speak the same language.
Originally posted 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.
Originally posted by x5deadlyvenoms
Look at the target audience for this publication. It is definitely NOT children.
Pre-teens on the front of a magazine like "Teen Bop" or something is understandable. It's target is teens.
Vogue is for adults. Therefore the image displayed is meant for adults, to attract them to the magazine. What is the image on the magazine implying? That the subject of the photograph is attractive, glamorous, and either something to desire, or something to aspire to.
Inappropriate. The end.
reply to post by Akasirus
So it's not possible to look at a person in a given situation and realize that they are being sexualized, without personally seeing it sexually yourself? For example, I don't have to think straight porn is sexy to realize that the woman getting gang banged is being sexualized (or sexually objectified, if you will). For a more pertinent example; if someone came across some photos of a child engaged in pornography, they couldn't be disgusted or appalled, yet also realize that child was being sexualized?
Originally posted by Akasirus
reply to post by Ironclad
So it's not possible to look at a person in a given situation and realize that they are being sexualized, without personally seeing it sexually yourself? For example, I don't have to think straight porn is sexy to realize that the woman getting gang banged is being sexualized (or sexually objectified, if you will).
For a more pertinent example; if someone came across some photos of a child engaged in pornography, they couldn't be disgusted or appalled, yet also realize that child was being sexualized?
I mean really, if that were true you wouldn't be able to be sexually abused if you didn't find the abuse sexy? Obviously this argument completely falls apart if you consider it for more than half a second, instead of just trying to use it to attack others.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is child pornography as others have claimed, or even feel she is being sexualized, but it is also quite obvious that you can recognize sexual exploitation without being sexually aroused yourself. So all this "If you see this as sexual, there is something wrong with you" amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem, and a poor one at that.edit on 6-8-2011 by Akasirus because: Typo
reply to post by Threegirls
Boycotting the publication is the only way to protest this inappropriate image of a ten year old. I have a ten year old daughter, if I found a picture of my child like this, I would seek to prosecute the persons responsible.
The child is (apparently) portrayed in an adult fashion. Semi-reclined in a plunge front dress, plastered in make-up. She is not shown as a child, in children's clothes doing things that children do.