Sick Society sexualizes a ten year old girl

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.

And some people find Nun's sexy too... "No I'm not one of those"...!!

So what would you have in your perfect world of Unicorns and aFariies...?

Will little children be forced to dress like Nun's to protect them..?

Will little kids be made to cover from head to toe at the beach..? I mean,isn't a little girl in a batthing suit sexual to you also, since you see sexuality in these images..?

Point is, you are seeing these kids in a sexual way, no matter how you try to defend yourself.. You people brought it up, you said in your own words "this is sexual"...

Now you try to weasel out of it ...

Anyone finding those images sexual, isn't someone I would trust leaving my children too.... Your the Perves not the ones who don't find it sexual..!!!

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.

I would like to point out that the most recent person to use this "soft porn" AND post it on the internet for their own self-aggrandizement... is the OP.( Currently has 13 flags, how fitting ) Enjoy your 13 pieces of silver.

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.

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.

This is just too young. It's creepy. She hasn't even hit her teens yet.

And the modeling world is dangerous enough for teens as it is, but to expose a prepubescent girl to this -- is just wrong. Vogue should be ashamed of itself.

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.

You make far too many assumptions to jump to those conclusion. The end.

Vogue is a fashion magazine,. It features the latest in modeling, high fashion, and the fashion industry in general. It is not a self-help magazine, you don't aspire to anything in it. It's read mostly by people in the fashion industry, or those interested in it, to see what new trends are emerging, or to keep up to date on new faces/photographers, or just because you like artsy high fashion crap.

This girl is an up and comer in the fashion industry, why wouldn't they do an exposé on her? This image is not meant to sexually attract people to the magazine, it's meant to attract them to the magazine by appealing to their interests in fashion, same as a picture of a cow on a Livestock magazine would 'attract' a farmer, not because he wants to # it, but because he is interested in information on the agriculture industry.

You make another rather large and ignorant assumption when you say the image is something to aspire to, or desire. What reasonable basis do you have to make this claim? As I said, it's not a damn how-to guide, it's just a bunch of avante garde photos only people in the industry care about. We don't make this assumption about any other photo in any other magazine. I don't aspire to be like the aliens in my sci-fi magazine, I don't desire them. There is a difference between an 'adult' magazine, and a magazine primarily targeting adults. The former is a rag full of sexualized images that people sexually desire, the latter is for mature people who are interested in a common subject.

That is such a delightfully flawed piece of logic you use there as well. "Oprah magazine is for adults. Therefore the images in it are meant for adults. Dakota Fanning was on the cover, so if you read Oprah magazine, you must want to # Dakota Fanning."

Besides, your entire premise is flawed. According to the article, the picture wasn't even on the cover. Though frankly that's irrelevant, as an image can sell something without having to sexually attract them.

Uhm where's the sexy in this ?

I guess beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

People see what they want to see,

I see a girl that probably had the time of her life, getting treated by a top modelling company as a star, ending on the frontpage of their magazine. Must've been quite the experience to tell her friends about. To deny that a child can be beautyful or more attractive than others is just ignorance but sadly also taboo.

I think birds are beautyful, but i have no sexual desire for them.

I think we as humans should care not to supress our human nature too much or it will just backfire on us. For most humans, the trait of secrecy and doing something naughty can add much more to the arousing factor than the act itself.

Like teenagers who only smoke weed because it's cool to do something illegal and thereby working quite to the contrary of the very reason it has been illegalized.

I can tell you guys one thing, if my niece was playing with womans makeup and i wanted to stop her with the reason being that it was naughty and made uncle aroused, i would never see my sister and niece again.

reply to post by SirClem


Why not look in your sunday paper, YOUR ads for local stores, go back several weeks to summer season ads,

reply to post by Mallik


True but not everyone sees things that way, walk around your local mall lately

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?

reply to post by Akasirus


Your point is moot.

Both your examples are of actual sexual acts and depiction thereoff.

The pics in the OP show nothing of that, no nudity, no sexual acts or depiction of sexual acts.

The only thing that is making the pics sexual, are the brains of the ones that say it is.

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

A very flawed explanation. While you are right that it is possible to recognize sexual exploitation without being aroused by it yourself, you're talking about things which leave no room for doubt. Lets take your example of a gang bang movie. Here there should be no room for doubt, the woman is obviously getting sexualised, wether she sees that as making her of less value is another topic. But there's no room for doubt.

It's when people start implying sexual undertones to stuff that is not intended to do so, this is when people display their own way of thinking. With this type of thinking we might aswell start packing up our kids in robes like the muslim do with their women. Let fear and evil win.

I am sure many of you have no idea what is going on in web..Just type "child models"...
Innocence is sexier than you think.

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. This particular image is of the type that paedo's like (I am suitably qualified to make this statement, as a subject of such images).

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 image does not show the raw beauty of the child, does not display a fashion which is desirable or appropriate.

This is child exploitation, as the saying goes 'if we tolerate this then our children will be next'.

How anyone can defend this, I do not know. To make this acceptable is to excuse the deviants who use such images to defend their perversion. This is not an artistic portrayal of innocence, it is repugnant and moves society in the wrong direction. This is demonstrated by the alarming amount of people defending it. Just because normal people do not find it sexy, does not mean that it is ok. It is clearly catering to a debased section of society and I don't want future fashions for kids to be in any way influenced by this sick representation.

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.

reply to post by Threegirls


Prosecute on basis of what?

Off course, a picture like this would not be made without your knowledge and consent.

So on basis of the pic itself you would not have a leg to stand on, because there is no law that says this is illegal, simply because there is no sex, nudity, sexual acts or depiction of sexual acts.

The fact that the pics are posted here and still remain, says it all.

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.

And we all know it is illegal to portray kids as adults, right.





Is this pic illegal?

Look the child is waving an axe, doing things kids shouldn´t be doing.

reply to post by SirClem


OMG if you think thats soft porn you are the perv. Babies don't have to put on lip stick for pedophiles to notice them. Those pedophile creeps like looking at babies, not babies disguised as adults. The add agency shot these photos because they knew silly folks would throw a fit and it would sell a SPIT LOAD of adds. Follow the money people.

This is foul filth, today's society is very low on morals, we put 5yr olds into beauty pageants, we abuse the elderly, we allow kids to be classed as porn material and so on and so forth.

I went around to see my friend and after seeing him I walked back to my car and saw an elderly lady on the ground. Being the person I am I walked over to try and help her, as I approached her face turned to utter fear, I could see this and calmly asked her If I could help her, she said ok and I carefully helped her to her feet and offered to walk her back to her flat.

She declined but said she was fine.

I called my friend when I got home and said I'd helped an old lady, they said they know and explained that the old lady had told them she thought I was coming over to mug her. When they told her who I was she was so happy that I was an ok person and told them to thank me.

The moral here, its got to the point where people know no level of depravity.

We were late on parents, but we both made sure our daughter had a FULL childhood, she played with dolls while other kids were running around painted up and smoking at 9yrs old. My daughter who is now 11 has enjoyed just being a child and doing what kids do, she does not swear, she well educated and she's never been forced to be older or felt the need to. She's just learning about looking after her looks and playing with nail varnish but does not smear herself with makeup, its just her playing as mummy.

I'm very very proud of my daughter and the idea of seeing my child in pictures of that nature disturbs me, the fact that someone's kid is allowed or even put forward for that sort of stuff by parents makes me sick.

Sadly I look around at the estate I live in, most of the kids are not kids, they are hooligans with parent(s) proud of their behaviour, most of the female mothers have no partner, they simply sleep with every bloke on the estate.

Most of the young males here simply refuse to work, most of them are directly involved with crime and spend their days smoking drugs and getting wasted on beer, these are uneducated unruly thugs, they are a blight on society.

All I hear these days is people going on about smoking pot, it seems a national pastime, its classed as 'cool', yet in truth its slowly killing them and is often the catalyst for paranoid attacks.

What I'm saying is that society is heading for the gutter, there are no things too crass now, women expect to be beaten up by their partners, men and women quite openly fight in family places, people pull knives and guns and its quite normal to hear of numerous deaths locally, all most all gang related.

Despite all our learning, all our steps forward many are happy to turn into 3rd world violent fools, morals and dignity are out the door, respect is given but not earned, the world is a huge cess pool waiting to happen...

reply to post by abe froman


What exactly are you suggesting? Could you expand on your comment?

I don't understand.... how many times does someone post that she should not be acting adult, instead should be doing kid things.... why do you assume she does not? I'm pretty sure she doesn't sit in a photo shoot 24 hours a day 7 days a week. also last time I checked my little sisters all took my mom's clothes and dressed up in them, seems to be a pretty common kid thing to do, but this girl gets to do it professionally. The arguments you're displaying are weak, there nothing sexual about these photos, stop trying to make something out to be something it is not.

reply to post by CaptainInstaban


One of the pictures is clearly implied nudity. She is bare chested with her hair covering her breasts, much like you would see an adult woman pose to tease.

reply to post by ohhwataloser


Stop kidding yourself. The sole purpose in her posing in this manner is to suggest sexuality. Period.